Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE KING

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES)

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Popplewell) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Council of Europe) Order in Council, 1950, be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL (In pursuance of the Order of the House of 24th July)

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

As amended, considered; Amendments made to the Bill.

Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended; Bill to be read the Third time forthwith.—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

CLYDE NAVIGATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Business Premises (Signs)

Mr. Storey: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning why he refused the application of Manston Medical Products Limited to erect a sign at 530, Chester Road, Old Trafford, Manchester 16.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Dalton): Because I agreed with the Lancashire County Council that the proposed sign would have been unsightly.

Mr. Storey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the explanation given to the applicant was that the sign would cut the skyline? Is he further aware that while there is a roof behind this proposed sign, one has only to go a little further down the street to see a much larger sign on which two vulgar teapots and the words "Drink Co-op Teas" cut the skyline?

Mr. Dalton: I am aware of part of that, although not all. The proposed sign was, in fact, a hoarding 32 feet long and 2 ft. 6 in. deep composed of metal sheeting with iron brackets to be attached to and to run along the premises and the guttering. The Lancashire County Council thought it objectionable, and I see no reason to disagree with them.

Mr. Storey: Will the Minister see what can be done about the other sign which cuts the skyline much more?

Mr. Black: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning how many forms, plans and specifications, and how many copies of each, have to be completed and submitted to the Land Board in connection with an application to erect a projecting sign outside business premises; and what is the average period of delay before a decision is given.

Mr. Dalton: None, Sir. The erection of a projecting sign outside business premises does not give rise to a development charge and is, therefore, no concern of the Central Land Board.

Mr. Black: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases the local


authorities are requiring the submission of plans and specifications that would be more consistent with the erection of an important new building than the erection of a small hanging sign? Can something be done to simplify the procedure?

Mr. Dalton: The hon. Gentleman asked me a Question, to which I have given an answer. There was a misleading letter—not for the first time—in the "Sunday Express" on 9th July, which may have misled the hon. Gentleman, together with others interested. In it the writer states that he was required to send plans to the Land Board. That is not true. The local authorities make their own arrangements with regard to these matters. They vary a good deal, and I do not like to interfere with them too much.

Helmsley Moor

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether the report of the public inquiry into the application to use Helmsley Moor as a bombing ground has been received; and, if so, when the decision will be made public.

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, and the decision will be announced very shortly.

Mr. Turton: Can the Minister explain why there has been the very long delay—nearly two years—between the public inquiry and the publication of the report?

Mr. Dalton: I could not, without notice, agree that it has been nearly two years, but after these reports are made it is always desirable to consult a number of interested parties, including the local people, to see if we can reach agreement.

Mr. Turton: Has the National Parks Commission been consulted?

Mr. Dalton: I could not answer that question without notice. It is a general rule that the National Parks Commission is consulted on such cases, provided they have arisen since the Commission was set up.

Oil Refinery, Hampshire

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he will grant a public inquiry into the siting of the new Caltex oil re-

finery in the neighbourhood of Southampton Water, in view of the widespread alarm that has attended the leaking out of the news of this project.

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether, in view of the objections raised by the Hampshire County Planning Committee, as well as by local authorities and local residents, to the scheme for the establishment of an oil refinery in the neighbourhood of either Hook Park or of Bromwich on the Solent Coast, he will now refuse permission for this scheme to be further proceeded with.

Mr. Dalton: His Majesty's Government have approved the proposal to erect an oil refinery somewhere on the eastern side of Southampton Water. No decision has yet been taken about the exact site or about a public inquiry.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the negotiations that have hitherto taken place have been conducted in entire secrecy, and that the local authority concerned has actually been bound to secrecy under an oath under which they may still be held? Would not a public inquiry be the only way to offer a belated outlet to the feelings which exist?

Mr. Dalton: I would not commit myself to a public inquiry, for reasons at which the hon. and gallant Member has himself hinted. If a request has been made that a matter should be kept secret, it is probable that some national interest of importance is involved, and must be respected. But, under the Act of 1947, I am required to give either an applicant or the planning authority, if they wish to be heard, an opportunity of developing their case, not necessarily at a public inquiry.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Does the Minister set no value on the report of the local County Planning Committee? If he does not set any value upon it, what is the use of having these county committees? Is he aware of the very strong feeling not only on the Committee, but among local inhabitants and local authorities, against this scheme, which will do damage to agriculture as well as amenities in that part of the county?

Mr. Dalton: Of course, I attach importance to the report and views of the planning authority—in this case the Hampshire County Council. As I have already stated in reply to a previous Question, if the County Council desires, it will be my duty, and I will gladly perform it, to give them the opportunity to develop their case to me or to a person appointed by me; but it is not always the case that the local planning authority sees the whole picture, particularly when large national and strategic interests are concerned.

Mr. Ralph Morley: Will my right hon. Friend use his influence to press on with this project as rapidly as possible, in order that full employment in Southampton may be maintained?

Mr. Dalton: It is, of course, a very important project for many reasons, not least from the point of view of oil supplies.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: How can the Minister reconcile his statement that a decision has been already reached by the Government to place the refinery on Southampton Water, with suggestions that he will now give consideration to objections by Hampshire County Council?

Mr. Dalton: I said it is going somewhere on the eastern side, but it is yet open to argument exactly where.

New Towns (District Heating)

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning on what grounds it has been decided that district heating schemes shall not be proceeded with in the new towns.

Mr. Dalton: Because, in the one new town where this was contemplated, I was satisfied that it would not pay.

Mr. G. Cooper: Can my right hon. Friend say if consideration has been given by the New Towns Development Corporation to district heating from rubbish destructory plants, as well as by the waste heat from electric power generating stations?

Mr. Dalton: That is a wider question. I went into this particular case very carefully, and I was satisfied that the density of building was not such as to give any probability of the scheme covering its cost, and, for that reason, I turned it down.

Mr. Gibson: Will the Minister, in general, be sympathetic to this kind of proposal, in view of its very great economic importance, and in view of the fact that in other countries, and particularly in Paris, they have made a success of it?

Mr. Dalton: I would be sympathetic to it if I thought it would be an economic proposition. In some parts it would be; in others it would not. It might well be in London, where there is a density of population, and tall blocks of flats and so on, but that is not so in a relatively dispersed development.

Development (By-Law Applications)

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether in cases where before 1947 there was a genuine intention to develop, and delays by local planning authorities prevented planning permission being granted before publication of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, but permission has since been granted by him, on appeal, he will exercise his discretion and issue a Section 80 certificate if the applicants submit a by-law application in conformity with his final recommendations.

Mr. Dalton: Yes, provided that the by-law submission was made within the 10 years preceding 7th January, 1947.

Mr. Russell: Is the Minister aware that many applicants did not submit their bylaw application in time, because of delays by the planning authorities in coming to a decision? If he will not grant it in these cases is it not rather unfair that they should be penalised when it is no fault of their own?

Mr. Dalton: The law is very definite on the subject. Before the 1947 Act was passed, the position was that if this concession with regard to dead ripe land was to operate, there had to be a by-law application or a building contract, or a building application, within the 10 years ending 10th January, 1947. I am bound by the law, and I cannot go beyond that.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the requirements of the Section operates very harshly on a number of applicants? Will he not consider the possibility of amending legislation with regard to that particular Section?

Mr. Dalton: I do not think they operate very harshly, and I can hold out no hopes of legislation at present.

Excavations, Sevenoaks

Mr. John Rodgers: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he is aware of the concern felt by the local planning authority, the local authorities and other bodies at his recent decision permitting an extension of sand and gravel excavations at Chevening in the rural district of Sevenoaks, which will result in detriment to the amenities of the village of Chipstead in addition to necessitating the closure or diversion of two public footpaths which cross the land to be excavated; and what steps he will take to ensure that these amenities are restored as soon as circumstances permit.

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, and my permission to work this area is subject to conditions for its restoration. The footpaths will be the subject of a further inquiry, and if they are closed alternative paths will have to be provided.

Mr. John Rodgers: Can the Minister tell us when that statement on the future of these footpaths will be made, and whether they will be closed, diverted or elevated in part on causeways through the workings, and when the amenities will be restored?

Mr. Dalton: We are looking into it with the local planning people.

Mr. Keeling: Can the Minister say when his report on the control of mineral development is likely to be published; and will he consider including in that report a recommendation that planning authorities should consult the amenities societies, especially as, where this consultation has taken place, it has proved valuable?

Mr. Dalton: That is a wider question. Perhaps the hon. Member would put it down. I am, of course, always anxious to bring amenities societies into consultation on these matters.

Bracknell New Town (Farley Hall)

Mr. Remnant: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what was the purchase price paid by the Bracknell New Town Development Corporation for

Farley Hall; and the estimated cost of adapting it to the Corporation's requirements.

Mr. Dalton: This is a matter of detailed administration, which I am content to leave to the Development Corporation. In accordance with the normal practice, the price paid for this property was negotiated by the district valuer.

Mr. Remnant: In view of the local understanding that this building, which was a hotel, is to be adapted, will he advise the Corporation to use the utmost economy in adapting the building to their requirements?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, I should expect them to use the utmost economy, but, on the other hand, their job is to build a town, and for that they must have proper headquarters accommodation. But I have every reason to believe that they are behaving with proper economy and energy.

Development Charges

Mr. Gibson: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what is the total sum collected for development charges under the Town and Country Planning Act.

Mr. Dalton: Up to the end of June, £3,500,000 had been collected and, in addition, £2,960,000 had been set-off against claims on the £300,000,000.

Mr. Gibson: In view of the miserable amount of development charges which have been collected so far, in relation to the £300 million that the Act provides shall be given to landlords, is it not time that the Government did something with this particular Section of the Act?

Mr. Dalton: If it is such a miserable sum, I am astonished at the amount of grumbling and complaint about the collection of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Voluntary Contributors

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of National Insurance if she will consider granting to contributors to the former voluntary pensions scheme the option of drawing unconditionally a pension of 10s. per week.

The Minister of National Insurance (Dr. Summerskill): Apart from serious practical objections, I could not contemplate giving a preferential option of this kind to former voluntary contributors.

Mr. Russell: Is the Minister aware that many contributors joined the voluntary scheme in 1938 with the idea of being able to supplement their income by 10s. a week at the age of 65, and that, instead of that, they are still paying out either 3s. 1d. or sometimes 6s. 2d.? Is it not really a repudiation of a Government contract?

Dr. Summerskill: I am sure the hon. Member will agree that those people who voluntarily contributed in the past now stand to obtain benefits which are actuarially far superior to the 10s. a week.

Mr. Russell: While I appreciate that point, it still does not alter the fact that they cannot obtain it without retiring, and that is the cause of the grievance.

Old Age Pensioners (Proxies)

Mr. Perkins: asked the Minister of National Insurance (1) whether, in view of the hardship caused to old age pensioners in country districts, she will consider making special arrangements whereby, when there are several members of one family living together and drawing old age pensions, one member of the family may be appointed to draw all the pensions, and thus make it unnecessary for them all to make the tiring journey often required in the country to reach the nearest post office;
(2) whether she is aware that the present regulations governing the appointment of proxies by old age pensioners are causing hardship in country areas where the journey to the nearest post office may require them to walk two or three miles, owing to the fact that pensioners are required to certify that they are prevented by illness from attending in person; and whether she will consider adding the words or infirm to the wording on the back of pension order forms and Form B.F.73 (Revised).

Dr. Summerskill: Without at the moment committing myself to details, I am considering what steps can be taken to meet the difficulties mentioned by the hon. Member.

Contributions (Payment)

Mr. Perkins: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether she has completed the experiment of paying National Insurance contributions by schedule; and to what extent the experiment has proved successful.

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir. The results of the experiment have in general been satisfactory. The detailed arrangements are being reviewed in the light of the experience gained. As I have said before, this system is only suitable for employers with a large number of regular workers.

National Assistance (Aberdeen)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of National Insurance (1) how many persons in the City of Aberdeen now receive the full amount of National Assistance at the increased rate recently agreed by this House; and what proportion they are of the total number of persons in that city receiving National Assistance;
(2) how many persons residing in the city of Aberdeen are now in receipt of National Assistance; and how does this compare with previous years.

Dr. Summerskill: The only available information relates to payments made by the Aberdeen office of the board which covers all Aberdeenshire and Kincardineshire. On 27th June assistance was being paid in 6,868 cases, of which 6,016 or 87.6 per cent. were receiving the full amount of the increases recently approved. The number of cases in June, 1949, was 5,641 and in July, 1948, 3,970.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the manner in which this scheme is being administered in Aberdeen is regarded with very great satisfaction by the people there?

Dr. Summerskill: Thank you.

Foundry Workers (Pneumoconiosis)

Mr. Paton: asked the Minister of National Insurance if she proposes to amend the relevant regulations to bring within the scope of the Industrial Injuries Act all foundry workers who suffer from


a pneumoconiotic condition as a result of being engaged in any process in or around a foundry.

Dr. Summerskill: Pneumoconiosis is already prescribed in respect of a number of foundry processes where medical evidence indicates there is a risk of contracting the disease, and I am now considering an extension of the scope of the regulations. If my hon. Friend has further processes in mind, perhaps he will let me know.

Mr. Paton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that reply will give considerable satisfaction? Is she also aware that there is a great deal of evidence of the spread of pneumoconiosis and silicosis in other processes than those prescribed by the regulations? Would it not be much simpler and more just if, instead of having to prescribe processes, the basis for eligibility were to be made the existence of the disease in a foundry worker?

Dr. Summerskill: I am quite prepared to examine that.

Mr. Awbery: Could the Minister state what procedure is adopted before a disease is regarded as an industrial disease and is liable to be brought under the Industrial Injuries Act?

Dr. Summerskill: We have to have convincing medical evidence that it can be attributed to the process.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: Is the Minister aware that this position was being considered by her predecessor? Can she give the House any idea when she will be able to make a decision on the point?

Dr. Summerskill: I am actively considering it now.

Tribunals (Appeals)

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Minister of National Insurance what is the proportion of appeals to the tribunals set up under the National Insurance Acts which are turned down purely on grounds of lateness of application; and what is the number of individual claims, where, due to oversight, sickness or failure to complete the forms accurately, the individuals have failed to obtain their insurance benefit after appeal to the tribunals, during the last six months.

Dr. Summerskill: During the six months ended 30th April last, there were approximately 6¾ million claims for benefits. During the same period about 40,000 appeals were made to local tribunals and in approximately 8,500 of them benefit was disallowed in whole or in part on the ground that good cause had not been shown for delay in making a claim or giving a notice.

Mr. Cooper: One of the cases I sent to the hon. Lady was about Mr. Stephenson who delayed making his claim, omitted certain details from the claim form and was deprived of his benefit after appealing to the tribunal. Would my right hon. Friend look into that case and look into the matter generally to see whether tribunals are not turning down a number of cases on unnecessarily trivial details, especially as the impression seems to be spreading that that is the case?

Dr. Summerskill: As I expect my hon. Friend knows, the figures I have just given do not accurately reflect the present position, because we have made provisional regulations extending the time during which those persons who are making a first claim for sickness benefit can apply. When these figures were compiled it was three days; it is now three weeks.

Mr. Nally: While I appreciate what my right hon. Friend has said, would she care to explain why it is that in a case of this sort—an appearance before a tribunal—the onus of proof is upon the applicant to show that there has been no carelessness? Why should not the onus of proof be upon the tribunal to prove completely that the applicant could, in point of fact, have registered the claim or was in a state of mind to have registered the claim when it should have been made?

Dr. Summerskill: I think only the applicant has the necessary evidence.

Mr. McCorquodale: In view of the changes which have been made, will the Minister be able to reopen any cases which have been turned down recently under the old regulations?

Dr. Summerskill: I am afraid it cannot be made retrospective.

Mr. Cooper: Would my right hon. Friend see that the same attitude of mind is adopted by these tribunals as is adopted


in the case of pensions tribunals, and would she also look into the case of which I have sent her details?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir.

Widows' Pensions

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of National Insurance how many of the 248,000 widows now in receipt of a widow's pension of 10s. a week are not in employment; and if she will take steps to assist those widows who are unable to supplement their pensions by remunerative employment.

Dr. Summerskill: Although I cannot give precise statistics, tests based on contribution records indicate that some four-fifths of widows with pensions at the 10s. rate, are employed or self-employed. Widows who are unable to work may be entitled to unemployment or sickness benefit, and National Assistance also is, of course, always available.

Mr. Awbery: In view of the fact that the number of widows receiving 10s. a week and unable to work is small, would the Minister give consideration to embracing that number within the Insurance Act so that they receive 26s. a week the same as everyone else?

Dr. Summerskill: I think I have explained before to my hon. Friend how difficult it is to integrate the two schemes. It is inevitable that there must be some anomalies, but I can assure my hon. Friend that if the comparatively few widows who need National Assistance will apply for it, they will find that they will be treated with every courtesy and understanding.

Mr. Awbery: That will be from the National Assistance Board and not from the Insurance Act?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir.

Reserve Fund (Investment)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of National Insurance what was the cost to the absorbed funds of the 2½ per cent. Treasury Stock held by the National Insurance (Reserve) Fund at 31st March, 1949, and shown in the accounts of that Fund as costing £153,924,166 6s. 10d.

Dr. Summerskill: The original cost of the 2½ per cent. Treasury Stock transferred from the absorbed funds on 5th July, 1948, was £159,112,934. I should point out that the figure quoted by the hon. Member includes a certain amount of stock purchased subsequently.

Sir J. Mellor: Why is the correct figure not shown in the accounts?

Dr. Summerskill: I am afraid the hon. Baronet does not read the documents very carefully. If he will look at paragraph 14 on page VIII he will see that the figures of cost prices shown in statement VII represented, in most cases, the price at which investments were taken over.

Sir J. Mellor: Why not give the actual figure of the cost instead of a figure for something quite different?

Dr. Summerskill: I cannot agree with the hon. Member.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of National Insurance why, while footnote (b), on page 25 of the House of Commons Paper 61, interprets cost price as market value at 5th July, 1948, no similar footnote appears with regard to the expression cost price on page 12; and whether a warning will be inserted in future Statements of Securities of the National Insurance (Reserve) Fund that the expression cost price bears no relation to cost.

Dr. Summerskill: As some of the investments shown on page 12 of the paper were purchased during the period of account, a footnote in the terms suggested by the hon. Baronet would not have been appropriate. As regards the second part of the Question, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on 4th July regarding the form of the accounts.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the right hon. Lady at least give a warning that the figure given for the cost price is not the correct figure of the cost?

Dr. Summerskill: Certainly. The warning has been given on page viii, as I have frequently pointed out. If the hon. Baronet is still confused—because he has put Questions down on four occasions on


this subject—and if he cares to come to my Department I will guide him through the accounts.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the hon. Lady put the right figure in?

Assistance Scales, Glasgow

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Minister of National Insurance why the recent increases in the National Assistance scales are not being paid to a number of Glasgow recipients; and under what section of the National Assistance Act or the subsequent regulations is the Assistance Board permitted to deny the increase to the said recipients.

Dr. Summerskill: I am informed that all recipients of National Assistance who are entitled to the recent increases are now receiving them. As regards the cases in which the amending regulations have not brought about any increase, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central (Mr. Manuel), on 18th July, but if he has any particular case on which he would like an explanation perhaps he will let me know.

Mr. Carmichael: In regard to the Question put last week and the one which I have put today, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is a fact that people who were on the old scale of the public assistance authority in Glasgow are not getting the increase because the scales they formerly received were higher than the national scales? Surely, as the cost of living was responsible for the increase, the people of Glasgow are entitled to it equally with others.

Dr. Summerskill: Altogether 90.9 per cent. of the people in receipt of assistance in Glasgow are getting it at the higher scale. In those areas where the local authority did pay a scale which was higher than the new scale, certainly there has been no increase.

Mr. Carmichael: On what grounds are they being denied the increase when the principle for increasing the scales was the increased cost of living?

Dr. Summerskill: On grounds of equity.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Fishing Industry

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of Labour how many men are employed as crabbers and lobster men in the fishing industry.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I regret that this information is not available.

Soft Fruit Industry

Mr. D. Marshall: asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the figure to the latest available dates as to the unemployment in the producing side of the soft fruit industry.

Mr. Issacs: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that there is a good deal of unemployment caused by the fact that home produced soft fruit is not being used? Will he consult with the Minister of Food on this matter, so that the unemployment does not increase?

Mr. Isaacs: Our problem is one of designating accurately the people employed exclusively in the soft fruit industry. People employed in this branch of horticulture sometimes pick soft fruit and sometimes hard fruit. I do not know if they deal with nuts.

Captain Crookshank: Nuts are on the right hon. Gentleman's side.

Technical Trades, Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the un employment in highly skilled technical trades, such as ship building and engineering, in the City of Aberdeen, what steps he is taking to ensure that the services of such highly skilled workers are not wasted by their being absorbed into work requiring less or different skill and technique from that for which they were trained.

Mr. Isaacs: The employment exchange will continue to do all that it can to help skilled workers who are out of employment to find work suited to their skill and experience.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are, in fact, many


highly skilled technicians who are being guided into inappropriate jobs? Will he have this rectified, in the interests not only of national production but of the men themselves, whose high skill is being wasted in jobs beneath their capacity?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir, I am not prepared to accept that generally, because men who have got high skill in one branch of, say, the engineering industry are often suitable in other industries. So far as ship building is concerned, there are 44 skilled shipyard men now unemployed at Aberdeen. I am afraid that if they want to carry on in that particular occupation they must be willing to leave Aberdeen and go elsewhere.

Factory Acts (Administration)

Mr. J. R. Bevins: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give an estimate of the respective numbers of old and slum factories and underground factories in the London area.

Mr. Isaacs: I am unable to give such an estimate.

Mr. Bevins: asked the Minister of Labour how many factories were visited on an average day by each factory in spector during 1948.

Mr. Isaacs: About six.

Mr. Bevins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as it is physically impossible for an inspector to inspect six factories in the course of a day, there is every reason why the whole administration of the Factory Acts should be reviewed?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. I do not accept that. If an inspector is to make a full routine inspection of every factory in his area, large and small, it would be difficult to inspect six a day, but many of these visits are follow-up visits to see if certain things have been done that it was advised should be done, or to make investigation of some special complaint. I am satisfied, in view of the number of inspectors we have, that they are doing their work very conscientiously.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: What progress is my right hon. Friend making with the recruitment of inspectors to cover this very important work?

Mr. Isaacs: That is another question.

Woodworkers (Injuries)

Mr. Bevins: asked the Minister of Labour how many young persons em ployed in general woodwork and furniture making sustained injuries through using woodworking machinery during 1949.

Mr. Isaacs: The figure asked for is not available.

Brickmakers

Mr. Baker White: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the shortage of brickmakers; and what action he is taking to increase the number of men available for this essential work.

Mr. Isaacs: Although the number of workers engaged in brickmaking has risen steadily during the last two years, I am aware that vacancies still exist in some areas. My officers are doing their best to help the firms concerned to find the additional labour they require, and in addition to normal local recruitment they have recently assisted in obtaining a number of men from development areas and from the Irish Republic.

Mr. Baker White: Seeing the position is as the Minister has explained, why is it that his Department are issuing in the Press advertisements for brickmakers to go to Australia, offering them assisted passages, very high wages, and all sorts of other kinds of inducements? Surely if there is a shortage of them we want to keep them in this country?

Mr. Isaacs: That may be, but, on the other hand, I think it was with the acquiescence of Parliament as a whole that we decided to help our Dominions to obtain key workers; and the few who are likely to go, compared with the number here, will not make a material difference to us.

Squadron Leader Burden: Is it not a fact that the shortage of bricks is due in part to the great number dropped recently by the Secretary of State for War?

Building Workers, Southampton

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will assist in the solution of the building labour problem for Southampton by re-opening the Adult Training Scheme for building workers.

Mr. Isaacs: Since November, 1947, the Vocational Training Scheme for the building trades has been restricted to the disabled. The question whether recruitment should be re-opened to able-bodied men has for some considerable time been under examination by my Department with the industrial organisations concerned.

Dr. King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the shortage of local building labour is one of the gravest problems of the blitzed towns, and that, pending the recognition by the nation of the needs of the blitzed towns, such a scheme as this would be of great help to Southampton?

Mr. Isaacs: Without going into the first part of that supplementary question, I can assure my hon. Friend that it is important that we should get co-operation with the industries concerned to set up again our training of adult labour.

Mr. Gibson: Would it not help the situation very considerably if building employers were to carry out fully the apprentices scheme in the industry?

Mr. Isaacs: I do not know that it is quite right to blame the employers in this, but it is a fact that the industry has not got the number of apprentices to which this scheme entitles it. Without putting blame anywhere, I may say it is the case that the normal number of recruits to the industry is not coming forward, and we are trying to get this further scheme adopted.

Mrs. Middleton: Will my right hon. Friend give an indication of when he will be able to come to a decision about the matter?

Mr. Isaacs: I wish I could give such an indication.

Sir Herbert Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the building force in Southampton are likely to be transferred to the new oil refinery which is being built near by?

Mr. Isaacs: Not without notice.

Sir H. Williams: Would the right hon. Gentleman ask the Minister of Town and Country Planning?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Tractor Service

Mr. Macdonald: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will withdraw the Department of Agriculture for Scot land tractor service from areas which are adequately catered for by private agricultural contractors, and thereby reduce the heavy loss to the taxpayer of maintaining this service.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): This is the policy at present being pursued.

Mr. Macdonald: Can the hon. Gentleman give any date by which this service will be removed from those counties and areas which are quite capable of managing without it? For instance, in my own constituency the private contractors are sufficient in number and scale to operate there without the use of this service. Where it is not needed will the service be removed?

Mr. T. Fraser: Whenever we are satisfied that the Department's machinery service can be suspended in any area it is immediately withdrawn, but we have to have regard to the needs of farmers who require it.

Mr. Snadden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the high cost of this service will soon automatically cause its withdrawal?

Legal Aid (Scotland) Act

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding the bringing into force of the provisions of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act, 1949, in terms of Section 17 (4) of that Act.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Miss Herbison): It is hoped to bring the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act, 1949, into force for the purpose of civil proceedings in the Court of Session and the sheriff court, except those excluded by the Act, on 2nd October next, and all necessary arrangements are being made to enable this to be done.

Tuberculosis

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the Report of the Scottish


Committee on Tuberculosis Service in Scotland; and if he will make a statement on the recommendation of crisis expansion of tuberculosis service.

Miss Herbison: With his officers my right hon. Friend has been studying carefully this Report, but has found in it no recommendation for the expansion of facilities which has not already been considered, whilst most of the recommendations have been tried with varying degrees of success. In the last two years more than 300 additional beds have been brought into use for respiratory tuberculosis, many of them in infectious diseases and general hospitals. This process my right hon. Friend proposes to continue, especially in general hospitals where nursing staffs are strongest.

Mrs. Mann: But would my hon. Friend inform the Secretary of State that all the recommendations published in the British Medical Journal have not been tried, and notably these two recommendations—one, that beds in infectious diseases hospitals should be used, and second—which, I think, is practicable—that the patients should have treatment in their own homes? Will she ask him to give attention to those two points?

Miss Herbison: The information which my hon. Friend has is quite wrong. In my answer I pointed out that already we have 300 beds, most of them coming from infectious disease hospitals. As to domiciliary treatment we have taken certain steps in that direction in the auxiliary services.

Sir David Robertson: Is the hon. Lady aware that there are only 10 beds for tuberculosis patients in the County of Caithness, and that there is a very large number of sufferers walking about in great danger who should be accommodated, and for whom accommodation could be found?

Mr. Rankin: Is this the committee appointed by the Scottish National Health Services Council in July, 1948?

Miss Herbison: No, this is quite another committee.

Dr. Hill: Bearing in mind that there are 1,000 beds available in Switzerland for the treatment of tuberculosis, would the hon. Lady consider the restoration of the scheme under which public moneys

were made available to enable persons to obtain treatment in Switzerland, and so set an example to her right hon. Friend the Minister of Health?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Do the recent figures show a rise in the trend of notification or a fall; and has the number of deaths, which was recently notable, continued, or is it slackening off now?

Miss Herbison: That is another question, but I can give the information. The number of notifications for the whole of Scotland has gone down slightly. In the number of deaths in the 16 principal towns in Scotland there has been about a 20 per cent. decrease during the last year.

Mr. John Hynd: Before involving the taxpayers in any considerable expenditure of money in sending people to Switzerland, would my hon. Friend seriously consider whether Swiss treatment is suitable for all these cases?

Mr. Rankin: Are any useful conclusion emerging from the second committee to which I referred; and will the report be soon available? We were assured in March of this year that it was on the point of being published.

Miss Herbison: That is another question, which perhaps my hon. Friend will put down.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Further to the question as to the possible unsuitability of Swiss treatment—and this affects the whole of the United Kingdom—is it not a case of relieving the strain upon the overloaded bed system of this country, there providing treatment for all sufferers from tuberculosis in this country?

Miss Herbison: The question of Swiss sanatoria has not much to do with the Question on the Order Paper, and I can give no information on it at the present time.

Mrs. Mann: Could we not have a coordination of these committees which are investigating tuberculosis in Scotland?

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the large number of tuberculosis patients in Glasgow awaiting admission to hospital; and if he will give an assurance that every effort is being made to increase hospital accommodation and that the waiting list is being progressively reduced.

Miss Herbison: Glasgow's waiting list at 30th June this year showed an improvement of 205 compared with last year. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I have already given to the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann).

Mr. Carmichael: Can my hon. Friend give any indication of the weekly intake to the hospitals of these cases? As far as I can gather, there are thousands waiting to get in who are almost giving up hope of ever being attended to.

Miss Herbison: In my answer I gave the increase in the number that we have been able to take in for the year, but I am sure I can find that further information for my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Mann: How many are actually on the waiting list in Glasgow?

Mrs. Cullen: Could my hon. Friend find out what progress is being made in obtaining other accommodation for people, at present occupying hospital beds, who need neither medical attention nor the attention of trained nursing personnel?

Miss Herbison: That is quite another question.

Development Charges

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give any estimate of development charges likely to be incurred by local authorities for new use in providing additional space for obsolete machinery and metal.

Miss Herbison: Since development charges are a matter for the Central Land Board, and since their amount depends on the facts of each case, it would obviously be inappropriate for me to make a hazard.

Domiciliary Confinements, Coatbridge

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of domiciliary confinements in Coatbridge for 1949; and how many of these were conducted by midwives acting without a doctor in charge.

Miss Herbison: The number of domiciliary confinements in Coatbridge in 1949

was 647. A midwife alone was present at 495; but a doctor was in charge, although not attending the confinement, at all but 31 of these.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Could the hon. Lady say in how many of these cases the midwives were equipped with and trained in the use of analgesia?

Miss Herbison: That is another question.

Mrs. Mann: Were all the 31 women who had midwives aware that they were entitled to a doctor and a specialist if need be?

Miss Herbison: It would be very difficult indeed for me to answer that question. I should imagine that all women in Scotland know that, particularly since 1948, they have a right to a doctor.

Police Constables (Appeal)

Lord Dunglass: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on what grounds, and after what procedure, he overturned the decision of the Chief Constable of Roxburgh and Selkirk to dismiss Constables Sangster and Peters from the police force.

Miss Herbison: My right hon. Friend considered the appeals of these two men under the procedure of the Police (Appeals) Acts, 1927 and 1943, and his decision to vary the punishment imposed by the chief constable was reached after careful consideration of the notices of appeal and of all the statements and documents submitted.

Lord Dunglass: Is the hon. Lady aware that until the Secretary of State intervened, these constables had pleaded guilty to a series of the gravest charges, namely, gambling in private houses in duty hours and five times falsifying the police books; and how does she and her right hon. Friend expect that there can be discipline in county police forces if this kind of thing is condoned?

Miss Herbison: It is not a case of condoning anything that these men have done. They exercised their right of appeal to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State, after examination of all the evidence, decided on the course that has been adopted.

Mr. Carmichael: Is there any possibility of these constables being transferred to another area, in view of the attitude of the chief constable, which, to judge by the noble Lord's question, is one of great detestation for the action of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and in view of the fact that these men will be under a cloud if they are kept in that area?

Lord Dunglass: Is the hon. Lady aware that one of these constables has gone to a neighbouring county, and that there are other outstanding charges being brought against him; that the whole situation is utterly unsatisfactory; and would she not review it?

Mr. Macdonald: As I am the Member for the constituency in question, may I ask the hon. Lady whether she knows if any notification of this matter was sent, as a matter of courtesy, to the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Robertson), to whose area one of the constables has been transferred? I ask that question because I wish to know why certain Conservative elements in Roxburgh and Selkirk, who have raised this issue, have asked Lord Dunglass—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—to raise it in the House.

Lord Dunglass: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I hope the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Macdonald) is not insinuating anything in what he has just said? As the reply given is entirely unsatisfactory, I wish to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mental Health Officers

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the reasons for the decision of the Western Regional Board to enforce the retirement of all officers in their asylums and mental institutions who have reached the age of 60 years.

Miss Herbison: I am informed by the Western Regional Hospital Board that they have taken no such decision, and that in fact many mental health officers over the age of 60 are employed in the region.

Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware that that answer is very welcome indeed, because there is a very widespread belief that these officers are being discharged?

Hill Cattle Subsidy, Caithness

Sir David Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, with a view to preventing injustice to Caithness farmers who have been deprived of hill cattle subsidy, he will appoint one of his agricultural experts to join a delegation from the Scottish National Farmers Union which will shortly visit Caithness to inspect the farms from which subsidy has been withdrawn.

Mr. T. Fraser: No, Sir.

Sir D. Robertson: Is that not an extraordinary answer in view of the doubts which exist about the justice of the Secretary of State's decision? Why should the Secretary of State not allow one of his experts to join a good trade union deputation?

Mr. Fraser: The good trade union has not asked the Secretary of State to send anyone to join this delegation.

Marginal Farms (Assistance)

Mr. Niall Macpherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland by what agricultural executive committees a limit lower than 50 per cent. is placed on assistance in respect of the cost of goods and services specified in paragraph 6 of S.I.,1949, No. 610 (S.32) (The Marginal Agricultural Production (Scotland) Scheme, 1949); and why lower limits are specified than those prescribed in this statutory instrument.

Mr. T. Fraser: The scheme prescribes a maximum of 50 per cent. of the cost of certain measures of assistance to marginal farms. The agricultural executive committees are authorised by the scheme to offer assistance to such extent as they consider necessary to meet the needs of any particular farm. All of the committees in fact offer rates of grant varying from 10 per cent. to 50 per cent.

Mr. Macpherson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some agricultural executive committees have stated that they are limited in the amount they give by the total amount made available to them, and for that reason are not giving the optimum percentage but a maximum of less than 50 per cent., and is that in accordance with the Order?

Mr. Fraser: I am surprised to learn that agricultural committees are saying that they are limited so that they cannot give up to 50 per cent. So far as I am aware, they are granted varying amounts between 10 and 50 per cent., but even the Secretary of State is limited in the amount be can spend by decision of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH FOREIGN POLICY

Mr. Turton: asked the Prime Minister whether, as a result of his conversations with the Prime Minister of Australia, he now proposes to take any steps towards integrating the foreign policy of the British Commonwealth.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): On questions of major importance to all members of the Commonwealth there is, of course, the fullest consultation, and every endeavour is made to arrive at an agreed view. On many other questions the Commonwealth countries are kept fully informed. There are naturally many day-to-day questions of foreign policy of minor importance and limited interest, on which it is neither necessary nor practicable to co-ordinate the views of all the Commonwealth countries. It would not be possible in this sense to integrate the policy of the Commonwealth over the whole field of foreign affairs, nor would it be in accordance with the nature of the Commonwealth as it has developed in the course of time to attempt to do so. I had some very helpful discussions with the Prime Minister of Australia during his visit to this country, and he was in agreement with the views which I have expressed in this reply.

Mr. Turton: In view of the fact that Mr. Menzies at Adelaide on 26th June stated that Empire Defence Co-operation became pointless if there was no common Empire foreign policy, did the Prime Minister discuss with Mr. Menzies how that could be achieved, and will he now invite the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers to consult together on this very important matter?

The Prime Minister: We do consult on these matters. We have had consultations at conferences and there is a constant interchange of view. I have not had dissatisfaction with these methods expressed by Commonwealth Prime Ministers themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions — STRATEGIC MATERIALS (STOCKS)

Mr. Walter Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that there are held in this country under storage conditions giving ample protection, sufficient stocks of all strategic raw materials.

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member is referring to stocks of strategic materials held by the Government, it will not be in the public interest to make any statement. I can assure him, however, that the amount and location of stocks of such materials is being kept under continuous review.

Mr. Fletcher: In view of the changing situation and the need for holding bigger stocks, owing to higher consumption in this country and the denuded state of stocks on the continent as well, will the Prime Minister review the whole of this situation with the idea of increasing these stocks, possibly at even the expense of dollars and gold?

The Prime Minister: There is a special departmental committee continuously at work watching precisely these matters.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that since the Korean business there has been considerable speculation in the shares of companies owning strategic materials, especially tin and rubber, and will he consider emergency measures if necessary to nationalise these concerns without compensation?

Oral Answers to Questions — ATLANTIC PACT (SPAIN)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Prime Minister if he will approach the President of the United States of America with a view to securing a closer relationship between Spain and the countries of the Atlantic Pact in the light of the deteriorating international situation and the obvious desirability of the collaboration of all countries who are anxious to resist Communism.

The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government maintain close and continuous contact with the United States Government on all matters affecting the Atlantic Pact and Western Defence. In


the view of His Majesty's Government, the closer association of Spain with the Atlantic Pact countries at the present time would not strengthen the collaboration of those countries against Soviet communism.

Mr. Gammans: In view of the fact that the Foreign Secretary has stated publicly in this House that he regrets the severing of diplomatic relations with Spain, is it not lamentable that we should continue this attitude at a time when Europe is in its present danger?

The Prime Minister: That seems to be a different question.

Mr. Gammans: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do nothing about it? Would he sooner that Spain was overrun by Communism than that we should have full diplomatic relations with Spain?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's question is with regard to the Atlantic Pact countries. I would remind him that the Atlantic Pact countries in the Preamble of the Treaty stated their determination
to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Is the Prime Minister aware that the negative reply that he gave about the desirability for the closest strategic relations with Spain will give the greatest pleasure to Communists all over the world?

Mr. Awbery: Will the Prime Minister make it clear that the primary object of our struggle in Korea is not to fight Communism, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman, but to uphold the principles of the United Nations Organisation?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Income Tax (Farm Animals)

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that inspectors of taxes are refusing to admit immature animals under the herd basis; and whether he will instruct them to admit them under paragraph 7 (2) (b) of the 10th Schedule of the Finance Act, 1947.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): Where an election is

made for the herd basis for taxation purposes, the law requires immature animals to be excluded from the herd, except where certain special conditions set out in paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule to the Finance Act, 1947, are satisfied. In case of dispute on this point there is a right of appeal to the appropriate body of appellate Commissioners.

Mr. Baldwin: Can the right hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of livestock breeding, explain how it would be possible for these people to bring their immature animals into a herd, and why should they not be allowed to bring into the herd the animals which they have bred?

Sir S. Cripps: If the hon. Gentleman will study paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule to the Finance Act, 1947, he will see the conditions under which they are allowed to do so, but these are very limited conditions.

University Students (Exchange Schemes)

Mr. Carr: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the currency restrictions which prevent British students studying at American and Canadian universities, he will consider the possibility of arranging an exchange scheme for university students with these countries.

Sir S. Cripps: Currency is provided for British students to take full-time courses at American and Canadian universities where an overseas course is essential to the student's career and where a comparable course is not available except in a hard currency country. Whilst it would not be appropriate for either the Ministry of Education or the Treasury to set up machinery for the purpose of arranging exchanges of university students with these countries, favourable consideration will be given to any bona fide schemes which may be submitted to the Treasury or the Bank of England by responsible educational bodies in consultation with the universities.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer say who is to judge whether an overseas course is necessary to the student's career?

Sir S. Cripps: The person who is making the decision as to whether in that particular case foreign exchange should be made available.

Tate Gallery Pictures (Transfer)

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, and by what authority a number of French paintings have been requisitioned from the Tate Gallery for the National Gallery; and where are they now exhibited.

Sir S. Cripps: I am advised that the paintings in question vest by law in the Trustees and Director of the National Gallery, who considered that they should be transferred to Trafalgar Square to offset the loss of 19th century French paintings resulting from the removal of the Gulbenkian Collection and of certain pictures belonging to the Courtauld Institute. The pictures transferred from the Tate Gallery are now on exhibition at Trafalgar Square.

Sir J. Mellor: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether they were not very well shown in the Tate Gallery, and were they not removed in the face of strong objection by the Tate Gallery trustees?

Sir S. Cripps: I am not in a position to say what is the view of the Tate Gallery trustees, but they were removed under the right of ownership as they belong to the Trustees and Director of the National Gallery.

Mr. Eden: May I ask whether this removal is in accordance with the terms of the Massey Report, which resulted

from a long investigation in relation to these galleries? From the point of view of the public it seems unfortunate if galleries have differences of this kind about showing national treasures.

Sir S. Cripps: I cannot say without inquiry whether it is in accordance with the Massey Report, but circumstances have changed since then, owing to the changes which I mentioned in the answer.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Cannot arrangements be made so that from time to time these paintings can be returned to the gallery with which they have so long been associated?

Sir S. Cripps: I do not think that one can force that on the galleries. They take the legal position which I have mentioned.

Sir J. Mellor: The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not know what was the attitude of the Tate Gallery. Why did he not consult the Tate Gallery trustees before answering this Question?

Sir S. Cripps: Because it has nothing to do with me.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Matrimonial Causes Bill [Lords], the Abitration Bill [Lords], the Adoption Bill [Lords], and the Shops Bill [Lords] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY (ANNUAL REPORTS)

3.31 p.m.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the First Annual Reports and Statements of Accounts of the British Electricity Authority and of the Area Electricity Boards; of the Report of the Minister of Fuel and Power for the period 1947–49; and of the Annual Report of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board for 1949.
We are to discuss today the First Report and the Statement of Accounts of the British Electricity Authority, the First Report and Statement of Accounts of the 14 area boards, the Report of the Minister of Fuel and Power on electricity and the Report of the Hydro-Electric Board of the North of Scotland, which comes under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The Reports of the British Electricity Authority and the area boards cover the period from August, 1947, to March, 1949; that is to say, it is already 15 months since the period ended. I do not think the Authority can be blamed for this delay. The Reports were published in January of this year. Was 9½ months too long for their preparation? As a normal practice, yes; but on this occasion the Authority and the Boards were faced with difficulties which will not arise again. It would have been an evident mistake to publish the Report without the Accounts; and in their first year the Authority and the Boards had to produce uniform accounts out of the diverse practice of the 558 undertakings which they took over. That was an immense task, which caused inevitable delay.
The outstanding problem of this first period was the setting up of the new national system which Parliament decreed in 1947. It was often felt—and, indeed, it was predicted in the House—that the change of system would bring widespread dislocation in the industry, and would do so at a time when the nation was in no condition to sustain the shock. I think that the Report, and the experience of those who use electricity in their homes and factories, have proved that these fears were unfounded. The Authority and the Boards have had a very difficult task in

setting up their new administration. They had to consolidate these 558 separate undertakings with their differing plants, with differing efficiency, with differing tariffs, and with widely varying problems of every kind. They had to consolidate them, to amalgamate the workers and the staff, co-ordinate and unify the finances, and keep the services running without the interruption of a single hour.
There have, of course, been two troubles in these early years. There has been trouble with the programme of new generating plant. It was, I am afraid, a very probable result, in post-war conditions, of the old system under which the Central Electricity Board laid down the programme, while the separate undertakings, municipal and private, placed the orders at their own discretion for the buildings and the plant. The House will remember how it sometimes happened that the machinery was ready to be delivered while the civil engineering work had fallen behind. Later on, delivery of boilers, and then the supply of pipes and valves, were bottlenecks. I am glad to say that the Authority have much improved the phasing of all this new construction work, and have found new sources of supply for boilers and tubes. The work on the power stations is now progressing well, and I hope that that particular trouble is now a matter of the past.
The second worry has been load-spreading and load-shedding, both of which are a nuisance to the consumer. Load-spreading has been carried out with great patriotism by all concerned, and it has made load-shedding much less grievous than it otherwise would have been. It is sometimes thought that load-shedding is an all-British phenomenon, and indeed that it has been the Government's fault. In fact, it is due to the basic fact that the demand for electricity at the peak hours of the day has greatly exceeded the available supplies. The same thing has happened in the United States. In the 25 years up to 1948, the output of United States power stations was more than trebled, yet in that year, so Mr. Warne, the Government delegate, told the World Power Conference the other day, more than half the undertakings in the United States, public and private alike, had to make what he called "maximum load curtailments."
The American language is more genteel than ours, but the result to the consumer is just the same. Mr. Warne reported that even in those regions where power had been enormously increased, the undertakings could not meet the maximum demands. They had to delay new industrial undertakings because they could not give the power, and to refuse to install heating and other apparatus in the people's houses and so on. It is legitimate to guess that we might not have had load-shedding if the construction of power stations had not been interrupted by the war, but in any case, as I shall show, we are beginning to make some progress, as my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Labour, explained the other day, we hope load-spreading next winter will be less onerous, both for industry and for the housewife, than it was last year. The House will agree that neither of these troubles can be blamed on the Authority. Their take-over from their predecessors, the transition to their new institutions and administration, has been singularly smooth and deserves congratulations to all concerned.
No one could know for certain what the out-turn of the first period would be. In fact, the Authority made a loss of £600,000 on the current supplied to the area boards, and the boards made a surplus of close on £5 million on their dealings with their industrial and domestic consumers. The net surplus for the industry was, therefore, £4,400,000, which is a modest figure on a total revenue of nearly £198 million.
The surplus was not made out of dear electricity. The House knows that the increase in the price index for all commodities since 1938 was 80 per cent. up to 1948. The average revenue per unit of electricity sold in 1948–49 was not 80 per cent. above 1938, but 12.6 per cent., and the amount per unit paid by the consumer for lighting, heating and cooking, that is, for the normal domestic and commercial uses, was not as much as it was in 1938, but 9 per cent. below. That result, a surplus of £4.4 million with cheap prices for electricity, was achieved in spite of a considerable rise in the number of people whom the Authority and the boards employ.
On paper the increase from vesting date up to 31st March, 1949, was 26,000. In fact, 15,000 of the 26,000 was a paper

increase only. The real increase was 11,000, about 8 per cent.; 7,000 of these 11,000 were needed because of the adoption of a 44 hour and a five day working week. The rest were due to deferred maintenance of the distribution system owing to the war, to the increase of work in rural areas, where the proportion of labour is higher than in the towns, and to the fact that the Authority and the boards now rely more on their own specialist services, legal advisers, architects, surveyors, accountants, and so on, instead of calling in consultants from outside as they used to do.
The numbers will go on growing as the industry expands, and the industry is expanding at a prodigious rate. The increase in the quantity of electricity generated has been, remains and will be stupendous. In 1929–30 it was 10,000 million units; in 1939–40 it was 25,500 million units; in 1948–49 it was 43,000 million units; and in the calendar year, 1949, it was 48,000 million units. It has almost doubled since before the war. The increase in 1948–49 over the preceding year was 10.5 per cent.
At the end of the period covered by the Report, the boards were supplying 12,200,000 consumers, an increase of half a million since vesting date, and two million more than before the war. Some of the two million have been country people. The easiest index to rural development is the number of poles used for distribution. In 1938 it was 100,000; in 1947, when we were just recovering from the war, it was 92,000; in 1949, 150,000, and this year probably about 175,000. In 1948 the number of farms actually connected to the mains was 9,200, and the capital expenditure in country districts was £5½ million. If this index of the poles is right, the number of farms which will be connected this year will be more.
The increase in electricity generated this year as compared with 1948–49 is again more than 10 per cent., and the Authority expect that this increase will go on. Their total capacity last year was about 13,000 megawatts. They predict that in 20 years' time, in 1970, it should be 30,000 megawatts if they are to meet the national demand. It has trebled since 1938 and will treble again by 1970. Is that really the future? It accords with the estimates put forward


by Mr. Warne for the United States. But is it healthy, necessary and right? What is this demand that goes on growing so voraciously from year to year?
Last year Mr. Francis Noel-Baker, the then Member for Brentford and Chiswick, raised on the Adjournment of the House the fact that in the Borough of Brentford, out of 5,260 premises, more than 1,600 within five miles of Hyde Park Corner were without electric light, and so strong was the desire of his constituents for electricity that HANSARD records that he raised the matter at 5.55 a.m.
Recently my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. G. Cooper), and Sunderland, South (Mr. Ewart) have asked me whether we could not instruct the area boards to replace gas lighting in the North-East of England with electric light. I can hold out no present hope that the boards could do so, because the capital cost would have been immense—about £1 million for Newcastle alone. There are still a quarter of the houses in the country which have no electricity supply and the householders who already have it, buy new gadgets, like fires, cookers, refrigerators, water heaters, and the rest, and use more current every year. There are only two million more consumers, a 20 per cent. increase in numbers since 1938, but they are using two and a half times as much current for domestic purposes as they did then.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: Because of bad coal.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am not talking about supplies of coal, but I will come to that later, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be more than satisfied with what I have to say.
Hon. Members in all parts of the House are constantly asking me to give more electricity to the farms. Farmers want it for their houses, they want to make artificial sunlight at 4 a.m. in order that their hens may lay more eggs; they want it for milking cows, for running dairies, for chopping fodder, for drying grass, and for a score of other jobs. The National Coal Board have replaced their old steam-raising plant in the Rhondda with electric power, and so have saved 4½d. a ton on the cost of mining coal. They

want to do it in all their mines. The other day a manufacturer in the Midlands told me he planned to build a big new plant, which I think he said would cost £2 million, to make bicycles for export. The market is waiting and he can export the lot, but the plant would be all-electric. He will start when he knows he will be connected and the power will be there.
The Anglo-American Council on Productivity and Industry, in their first Report in 1948, talked about the relations between the amount of energy available per employee and the productivity of labour. They said:
In the United States this figure is approximately twice that in the United Kingdom. This fact, in our opinion, accounts in large measure for the greater output per man hour in many industries in the United States.
That is the demand. I think most hon. Members will believe that we ought to meet it if we can. But can we? Can we catch up with present plans or make the great long-term expansion which the Authority foresee? The Authority have begun to make real progress with their generating programme. In 1945, because of war conditions, we only got 181 megawatts of new capacity installed; in 1947, it was 340; in 1948, 566; in 1949, 703; and this year we hope it will be about 900. The Authority have a programme for the next five years of 47 new stations and 35 extensions of stations which now exist. On 61 of these, civil engineering or building has begun, and on 48 they have started the erection of the plant.
Perhaps it is easier to grasp the immense scale of this capital investment programme if we take the cost in cash. This year it will be not less than £102 million—£54 million for generation, over £5 million for transmission and £35 million for distribution to consumers. These are immense sums, and in later years they will be even more. Of course, the capital cost per kilowatt is far more today than it was before the war. The Authority have to pay more for civil engineering and builders, whose costs have gone up. They must pay more to the manufacturers for machinery and plant. Indeed, the present capital cost of new generating capacity is £54 7s. per kilowatt, which compares not unfavourably with the United States, but is three times what it was before the war. The Authority raised £150 million on the market the other day at 3½ per cent. and even


at that favourable rate of interest the future interest and depreciation charges will be pretty high. Working costs are higher than they used to be. It is well known that that applies to wages and to supplies of all kinds. Coal has risen less than many other things, but it has risen more than the prices for electricity which the Authority receives.
What economies in operation can the Authority hope for to offset this heavy rise in costs? In the longer future they will certainly get a saving on the standardisation of their machinery, their cables, switchgear equipment, transformers and the rest, and there will be increasing economies in transmission and distribution now that the whole system can be organised as a single national unit and the load can be allocated to the best advantage. Little could be expected during the first year. Nevertheless the Report speaks of a capital saving of £1,400,000 by national load allocation in 1949. There were other substantial savings in the areas as well, nearly £500,000 in two areas alone.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am very sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but it might be much easier to follow his speech if he will give us the reference to each paragraph, if it is on his notes.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am very sorry, but I am afraid that it is not on my notes. I occasionally have it, but not here.
Hon. Members may have read about the super-grid which some day will transmit current of 300,000 volts or more. One of the results may be that more power stations can be situated at the pitheads. That would save the very heavy cost of transporting coal. There are other factors in the selection of power station sites. Immense quantities of water are required. I am told—I found it difficult to believe but I am sure it is right—that a 300 megawatt station requires 12 million gallons of water an hour, about as much as the whole of London uses. The cost of coal transport is an important item and perhaps some day the super-grid may make big savings there. The Authority have made considerable savings by close cooperation with the Coal Board on the fuel they receive. The loss of electricity due to unsuitable fuel has been cut from 3.3 per cent. in 1946–47 to 2.5 per cent. in

the following year and 1.2 per cent. in 1948–49. This cut of 2.1 per cent. is equivalent to the addition of about 250 million—

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the pre-war figure?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am afraid I have not it here. It was not substantially above or below. It is below now. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with it. The saving to which I was referring has meant an additional 250 megawatts of power, that is to say, an output equal to the output of a new large station.
They have made savings by cutting down the loss due to breakdown of plant, to overhauling and such things. In 1948 the saving was 15.1 per cent., in 1949 12.1 per cent., and today 11.4 per cent. They have got that result by improved planning of the programme of overhaul, and by having expert repair squads which could be sent at a moment's notice to any station where they might be required. That saving of 3.7 per cent. gave the Authority an additional 400 megawatts of power. It was a considerable result, but on this item, with 11 per cent. of loss—before the war the plant was newer—they have still a long way to go.
Much more important than any or all of these factors is the more efficient use of coal. Hon. Members know the basic figures about the use of coal because the figures are very familiar. It has been estimated that the overall national average of efficiency is about 18 per cent. and that 82 per cent. of the heat value of coal is wasted. It is lost in smoke and in other ways. If we could raise that average from 18 per cent. to 28 per cent. we should save 60 million tons of coal. With that background in their minds, let hon. Members consider the use of coal for electricity. I hope that the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christ-church (Mr. Bracken) will do so, because 97 per cent. of all our electricity is made from coal. The coal consumed last year was 29 million tons.
The most efficient plant and the least efficient plant of the Authority show an immense difference. The oldest plants, with old boilers, often use their coal with an efficiency of less than 10 per cent., but the modern stations with


modern boilers use it with an efficiency of from 25 per cent. to 28 per cent. Some of them are at the standard which, if it were a national average, would give us the equivalent of 60 million tons of coal. The best of the modern stations give nearly three times as much electricity per ton as the oldest and the worst. As the cost of coal is now two-thirds of the total cost of electricity generation, it is plain that as the Authority modernise their plants, they have room for big savings.

Mr. Drayson: If there is to be a saving of 60 million tons of coal as is envisaged, will that mean that fewer miners will need to be employed?

Mr. Noel-Baker: For the whole of the measurable future we shall need all the coal we can possibly get, and it will be some time before we can save the 60 million tons. The Authority have the prospect of big economies in time to come. Already, since the vesting date, they have raised the efficiency of the stations from 20.86 to 21.5 today.
There is the basic nightmare problem of the peak. Nothing helps so much to reduce the cost per unit or to give real economy and help to electricity as the reduction of the peak load and the better spreading of the load throughout the night and day. For many years the best brains in the industry have been devoted to this problem of the peak. They have accomplished something. By offering cheaper electricity they have induced industry to carry out certain processes at night. I am sure that a constant, urgent drive is still required, especially upon the storage of electric power.
There is scope for the increased use of domestic and industrial storage water heaters which heat the water at night and with which it can be sometimes arranged to cut off the current automatically before the morning peak begins. Experiments are taking place with a storage fire or radiator. This might be important on a cold morning because the present domestic electric fires add about 10 per cent. or 1,000 megawatts to the morning load. There are electric battery vehicles, which as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has said, have many great advantages in the modern city because they have no fumes, no noise and no dirt and the batteries are charged

at night. Big expansion of their use would give a big night load, and it would save imported fuel as well.
In every branch of electricity there is still great scope for scientific research, and I am glad that the Authority are constantly putting more resources into research, especially research into storage batteries, on which I believe an intensive effort is required, and into other storage and control devices which might give real results in relation to the problem of evening out the load.
How will all this affect the costs of the electricity supplies? No-one can venture any safe prediction. In Appendix 25 of the Authority's Report, there is a chart which shows that total costs have risen in an almost unbroken curve since 1935. In the last year, 1948, the curve flattens out and dips slightly down. In paragraph 256 of the Report, there are detailed figures which explain the curve and why it changed. Since March, 1949, the downward trend has continued. Sir Henry Self believes that the average costs may be held below the maximum level to which they rose in the early part of 1948.
In any case, I believe that we can rely on the Authority and on the area boards to do their utmost to make themselves and keep themselves increasingly efficient year by year. They will be stimulated in that endeavour by Debates like this one, by the joint consultative machinery which they have established with their workers and their staff, by the work of the Consumers' Consultative Councils, by the healthy emulation which is growing between the area boards, by their competition with the rival industry of gas, and by the spirit of service which both electricity and gas have always shown. I think that, like the National Coal Board, they will find that what they are spending on the training and education of their workers, their staffs and their engineers will be the most rewarding of all the investments they have made.
Perhaps within a measurable future they will call on new resources to meet what seems to be an insatiable demand. Leaving out atomic energy, there are still the winds and the tides. They have already got experimental wind stations in the Orkneys and on the Cornish coast. The Americans have had one in actual production in Vermont, at a place called Grandpa's Knob. When we can afford


the capital investment and when we have done the necessary research, I think we shall find not only that we can use the winds but that there are other places besides the Severn where we can use the tides.
Whatever the future may hold, I hope the House will think that the British Electricity Authority have made a smooth and satisfactory start in their arduous but vital task, that they are already substantially increasing the electricity which they supply, that they have made big economies in operation and that they may hope for more, that they are just completing an intensive study of their tariff problem, that they are calling science and invention to their aid, and, perhaps most important, that they have done much to create and to consolidate the goodwill and the team spirit of those whom they employ.
Electric power—we have seen it here— may greatly help to raise the living standards of the people. T.V.A. is only the most dramatic example of a world-wide process. I think that these first Reports augur well for the future of the Authority and the boards and for the welfare of the nation whom they serve.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Yesterday we had an almost entirely non-party Debate, and I have been wondering what our Debate today would be like in this respect. When we discussed the Report of the National Coal Board, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) said that he thought that in the House we ought to approach these Reports in an objective spirit and more from the point of view of a company at its annual general meeting than, so to speak, in a rough party manner. Of course, I agree with my right hon. Friend, but quite frankly I see the difficulties in the matter for hon. Members on all sides of the House, because we must face the fact that the boards have been set up in the course of one of the main political controversies between the great parties, and I have a feeling that it may take some time for the temperature to fall to that point where our Debates can be so completely non-controversial and objective that the polemical note will not enter into them at all.
When I was wondering in what spirit the House would consider the Reports

today, it occurred to me that hon. Members opposite seem in recent months to have changed their tone to a considerable extent about the whole question of nationalisation. I have been wondering whether these Reports have caused some change in their attitude Of course, it may have been some more practical matter, such as the result of the General Election, or it may have been both.
I must also take note of the fact—I think that hon. Members will allow me to do this—that recently some Ministers have betrayed a greater sense of the value of private industry than has sometimes been the case in the past, and I suppose that we ought to bear in mind when we are considering these matters that overriding in the background is the international situation which may lead this country into rougher waters, in which case, of course, we should have to make do with what we have in the shape of public and private enterprise as they are organised at present. However, I trust that we shall not have to make do with the present Government.
Having made that slightly controversial statement, I should now like to turn definitely to the Report and to say that I am sorry that I cannot give it unqualified praise. I think it will be agreed that the accounts and the statistical section are good, but, for my part, I agree with "The Economist" when it stated that the rest of the Report is:
Turgid in manner and labyrinthine in arrangement.
At the same time it would not be fair if I did not acknowledge the great value that should be attached to some statements which have been made by Lord Citrine and also to the particularly valuable paper which Sir Henry Self delivered at the British Electrical Power Convention quite recently, which I am sure will have been read with great interest by hon. Members on all sies of the House and which helps us very much to appreciate some of the points which are dealt with in a more abstruse manner in the Report itself.
We wish to be fair to the British Electricity Authority and, even more particularly, I should like to say that we are encouraged in our desire to be fair to them by reason of the fact that they have been fair to their predecessors. One can hardly go through a dozen pages in the Report—and we know that there are a very large


number of pages—without seeing some tribute to the Authority's predecessors. For example, in regard to the bulk supply part-time tariff, they go into the reasons which led the previous undertakings to work upon the principle of a two-part tariff, and they say that the:
Empirical formula had worked remarkably well before vesting day and the Authority had no hesitation in adapting it for application to their bulk sales to area boards.
Again and again Lord Citrine and other spokesmen of the Authority have gone out of their way to point out that the Authority have succeeded to a virile and progressive industry which was in very good shape. I will not weary the House with details, but instances constantly recur throughout the Report, and we appreciate that.
One part of the heritage to which the Authority succeeded was, of course, the Central Electricity Board set up by a Conservative Government, and I wish to point out that when that was done, it was done in order to facilitate a major technical advance in the industry, the establishment of the grid. There is no change which has been brought about by His Majesty's present Administration, no comparable great technical advance, which has been either necessitated by the new organisation or is likely to be brought about by it; and Sir Henry Self in his paper does go out of his way—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): The right hon. Gentleman will not overlook the new super-grid.

Mr. Lloyd: I am glad to see the new super-grid is coming in, but I would point out that there was nothing whatever to prevent the old Central Electricity Board from improving its grid and producing the super-grid; so that the arrangements made by a previous Conservative Government would entitle them to claim the technical improvement of the grid system quite easily without the present arrangement.
I was about to say that Sir Henry Self paid tribute, and was right when he said that the grid was an essential feature in winning the war. The Authority have acknowledged the considerable assets they received, and I think I am entitled to claim, as is obviously the case, that with those assets, including the grid, there was

a wealth of technical personnel engaged in the industry, on the one hand by private enterprise and on the other by the Central Electricity Board, assisted by a Conservative Government in the past.

Mr. Pannell: Would the right hon. Gentleman mention the local authorities?

Mr. Lloyd: I entirely agree—

Mr. Pannell: A form of municipal Socialism.

Mr. Lloyd: I entirely agree. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to go into the past, he will recollect that from the very beginning of electricity supply in this country, both the Conservative and Labour Governments recognised that it was inevitably a monopoly service and had it strictly controlled by Parliament. However, I would not wish to be led too far away into that feature of the past.
The right hon. Gentleman has contributed to the lack of fierce party controversy in this House today by a notably unaggressive defence of the British Electricity Authority and the actions of his Department. Indeed, he struck the note so low that it almost seemed that—leaving on one side for the moment the admittedly important economies he claimed—that his main point was that the Authority had come into operation without any terrible dislocation occurring to the industry of this country—which does not seem to me to be a very strong form of defence. I would remind the House of the difference between the tone of the statements being made today and the promises made to the country by the party opposite in regard to this very matter of electricity. In "Labour and the Nation" they said:
Public ownership of gas and electricity undertakings will lower charges. …
well, that is what they said—

Mr. Pannell: "Labour and the Nation" was published before the war.

Mr. Lloyd: "Labour and the Nation" was published in 1945—I am sorry, I am referring to the statement of policy for the General Election of 1945.

Mr. Robens: "Let us Face the Future."

Mr. Pannell: "Labour and the Nation" is a definite document about the


party and recognised by those in the party. It was written before the war, and so the right hon. Gentleman will understand that there is some point in my remark.

Mr. Lloyd: I entirely accept it. I would not dispute with the hon. Gentleman with regard to details of the technical literature of the party opposite. I think I am dealing with a statement made after the war. But in any case the same statement was repeated during the Second Reading of the Bill by the then Minister of Fuel and Power; so there can be no doubt that, generally speaking, both before and after the war, a promise was held out that charges would be lowered as a result of the nationalisation of electricity.
The brutal fact is, of course, that almost the first act of the Authority was to raise charges by nearly a shilling in the £. I know that coal played a big part in this matter. I know that it was making its influence felt even before the vesting day, and it made its influence felt decisively after the vesting day. But I want to refer to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the comparison with prices before the war. He said that they were 9 per cent. less than before the war.

Mr. Noel-Baker: For domestic consumers.

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, for domestic consumers. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to claim that as an achievement of the British Electricity Authority; but, after all, the Report which we are discussing is for the period from 1947 to 1949, and that is only a very short part of the period between 1939 and the present day. If we are to regard it as an achievement, I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in fairness, to agree that that achievement must also be counted to the credit of the private enterprise authorities which were handling this matter during far the greater period of time which elapsed from the beginning of the war until the period of the Report; and in fact right throughout the war, when on the whole charges were rising even more.
It is the case that just before vesting day the electricity prices to domestic consumers were not 9 per cent., but 13 per cent. lower than before the war. I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that this is a fair point

to make, and that if it is an achievement it must at least be shared between the public authority and the private enterprise undertakings which came before.
Coal has, of course, been a very serious problem for the new Authority. It is not only the question of the rise in the price of coal; it is also the question of the fall in the quality of coal. That falls again into two classes. First, there is the fall in the calorific value of the coal supplied to the Authority. Lest we tend to under-estimate this, the Deputy Chief Engineer has himself stated that the fall in the calorific value of the coal means an extra payment of £4 million a year by the Authority. That is an official statement by the Deputy Chief Engineer of the Authority.
Not only is there a fall in the calorific value of the coal, but there is also the related question of the increase in ash content of the coal; and again we know from the same authority that it costs 4s. a ton to dispose of the ash. I have made a slight calculation, which is always open to correction by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Authority used 28 million tons of coal during the year under review. The ash content was approximately 15 per cent., which was a rise of 5 per cent. compared with the time before. There fore, that means that the British Electricity Authority had somehow to dispose of 4,200,000 tons of ash at a cost, in addition to the cost of the coal they bought, of £840,000 a year, which I think is a demonstration of the very severe problems the Authority are facing owing to the in ferior quality of the coal being supplied by the National Coal Board. If we look at the future, we are bound to take account, as Sir Henry Self—

Mr. Tomney: Does that include cash sales to the contractors of the clinker?

Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman consults the paper of Sir Henry Self, he will find that the Authority had the greatest difficulty in disposing of their ash. It was a technical problem of great complexity, because of the liability of the ash to become airborne in certain circumstances and the fact that they had to purchase chalk pits and quarries and arrange at considerable expense to pack it in those receptacles. It does not, therefore, look as though it was a very profitable


sideline for the British Electricity Authority to dispose of their ash. We must realise, of course, that the Authority have to face the 16⅔ per cent. increase in the Transport Commission's charges, which involves them in £1,500,000 a year extra for railway charges and £250,000 by canal.
The Report strikes a warning for the future when it tells us—this point was touched upon, but not developed, by the right hon. Gentleman—of the great cost of the new capital equipment and its inevitable effect, unless other economies can be found, in causing a rising trend of costs in the future. That is the case even though the Authority are now able to borrow upon a gilt edged basis. Indeed, Sir Henry Self has made a calculation for 1955–56—I admit that he calls it "an imaginary exercise in prophetic arithmetic "but he is doing his best to look ahead that period—and says that it yields "a barren prospect for 1955–56." Again, he warns of the danger of rising prices. He says that with this kind of consideration—that is, the rising costs of capital equipment, among other things—there is a serious danger that we may not be able
to maintain a balance without any serious disturbance of the level of retail tariffs.
With regard to the overall result, he says:
Obviously we cannot accept the emergence of a financial result of the order indicated.
He concludes by pointing out that in the whole of this calculation he has made no allowance for certain reserves which he regards as essential to put against certain hypothetical results that may happen in the next few years.
I had intended to deal with the problem of rural electrification in some detail but I will refrain from doing so in order to spare the House the extremely technical argument which it involves. I might, however, be allowed to say in passing that once again very considerable promises were made, this time in "Labour Believes in Britain," which, I believe, is a fairly up-to-date document.

Mr. Pannell: "Labour and the Nation" was a 1918 document.

Mr. Lloyd: I am sorry if I gave the wrong title, but I am not so familiar as the hon. Gentleman with the nomenclature of the party opposite. I know,

however, that mine was an up-to-date statement. This is "Labour Believes in Britain," which is undoubtedly the Socialist manifesto for the 1950 Election. It says:
In the next five years, now that electricity services are publicly owned, more rapid progress will be made with rural electrification.

Mr. Popplewell: And that is being done.

Mr. Lloyd: I should like hon. Members to read this very interesting paper by Sir Henry Self. I will not take them through all the stages of the argument relating to the two-part tariff, to the necessity for that tariff because part of it relates to the capital charges and part to the running costs, and to the fact that we cannot have what Sir Henry Self calls the "postalisation" of electricity from a tariff point of view over the whole country, for technical reasons which he develops. He then finishes with these words:
Unless, therefore, the consumers or communities concerned make some special contribution towards the extra costs incurred, development in rural areas cannot proceed rapidly, particularly in view of the investment cuts imposed by the Government.
The House will see, therefore, that the note of "Labour Believes in Britain" is very different from that adopted by this responsible member of the Authority when he tries to translate that matter into a practical programme for the future.
One of the most disgraceful episodes with which the Report deals is the responsibility of neither the Authority nor the right hon. Gentleman; it is the responsibility of his predecessor, when he insisted on imposing what is called the "Clow differential." I wonder whether the Minister would be good enough to tell us the correct pronunciation of this name?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It is pronounced "Clō."

Mr. Lloyd: That was a case in which, over the protests of the Authority, and in spite of their reluctance, which was continually expressed, the Minister directed the Authority to put on this specially heavy charge during the winter months.

Mr. Robens: There is no indication of any Ministerial direction being given to the Authority at all.

Mr. Lloyd: No, but I fear that under the circumstances in which these gentlemen hold office after having been appointed by the Minister, a serious request from him has almost the same force in actual practice as a direction. Anyway, it is absolutely without doubt that the Authority always realised the technical and general objections to this differential. They never wanted to operate it, but as a result of some action by the Minister, whether it was technically a direction or was a very earnest request, they were prevailed upon to do it. It was a complete failure, and there have been complaints from all over the country.
This is really something that could not have happened under ordinary private enterprise conditions, because, in those circumstances, the Minister would not have had the same degree of authority. He would not have had the degree of moral suasion which would enable him to force the electricity undertakings, at his will, to put up the price of electricity during those winter months as, in fact, he did. Even the Authority, who, I have no doubt, are, in general, a little frightened of the Minister, go so far as to say that they were most reluctant to implement this charge. They doubted its efficacy and believed that hardship would result. I hope that without any alteration of the Act or anything of that kind, we can ask the Minister to be very careful indeed in the way he interferes in the action of the British Electricity Authority.

Mr. Robens: This is a new doctrine.

Mr. Lloyd: No, it is not. We know that the request was put by the Minister—that is not denied; and it was most reluctantly agreed to.
We on this side have from time to time said, and it has been challenged by hon. Members opposite, that some of the private consumers of products and services of the nationalised boards were somewhat nervous about making complaints and having them ventilated even in this House, at any rate to the extent of giving their names, because, human nature being what it is, they were frightened of certain retaliatory action by the monopolies with which they were compelled to continue to deal. I happen to have been, in a corporate capacity, a very large consumer of the British Electricity

Authority in my capacity as a governor of the B.B.C.
I tell the House once again that I speak with a certain experience on the question of nationalised boards. I have been a member of one of them. It is true that it is one of the more respectable nationalised boards, which was set up by a past Conservative Administration—for very good reasons. I was appointed as a member of the Board of Governors of the B.B.C. by the present Prime Minister, in pursuance and in continuation of the healthy convention—which, I understand, is never understood by party politicians of other countries—which was started originally by a Conservative Government, of including among the members of the Board, not a representative of the official Opposition, but somebody who happened to be a member of the party forming the official Opposition.
In that capacity in which I was during my enforced holiday from this House and also with the advantage of Parliamentary privilege, I would like to say this: there is no doubt that when I was a Governor of the B.B.C. we found more difficulty through negotiating our tariffs all over the country for consumption by our installations, when the British Electricity Authority had been established. In the old days there was a much more friendly and accommodating attitude by the old electricity undertakings, but, when the British Electricity Authority came into being, we found that old friendly attitude between our technicians and theirs had gone and there was a much more "take it or leave it" attitude. I do not want to stress this too far, but there was much less spirit of accommodation and much less spirit of being prepared to meet the particular difficulties on a fifty-fifty basis and much more of this rather standoffish, official and bureaucratic take it or leave it attitude.

Mr. Pannell: As the B.B.C. treat their employees?

Mr. Lloyd: The difficulties of the corporations arise out of their obligations to the consumer, but here is a public authority which feels it has a certain grievance about its treatment by another authority. I only hope that the difficulties I have mentioned have passed away since I was a Governor, or that they will speedily do so, because I think that with good faith on both sides they can be co-operative.

Mr. Robens: I take it that we can now secure details of these charges from the B.B.C., and have them investigated.

Mr. Lloyd: No; I am speaking in a personal capacity as an ex-Governor of the B.B.C. and what I have said I stand by.

Mr. Robens: Serious charges have been made against the Authority in their treatment of the B.B.C. I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. He gave no evidence of this at all, but said it was his experience. Now I am asking whether he will be prepared to give the evidence, or if we can approach the B.B.C. and secure the evidence of where they have been badly treated and have it investigated.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman must not attribute to me more than I have said. I was careful to say that I did not wish to push it too far and I deliberately restricted my remarks to the question of a more standoffish attitude and did not make a charge of any definite action of a price kind against the B.B.C. I finished by saying that I did not want to exaggerate the matter and that I hoped it had already been dealt with, or could be improved by a more co-operative attitude.
I would like to say a word about the publicity expenditure of the British Electricity Authority. In common with many hon. Members, I have been greatly charmed by the delightful pictures of power stations appearing in the Press recently. Usually they have a swan floating in the foreground, but the one I have here has a yacht in the foreground. I congratulate the Authority on commissioning very good artists to produce these delightful pictures. But I must point out that this cost £439,000 in the year of the Report we are considering. I ask the Minister and the Board to consider whether that very large amount is really justified, particularly having regard to the fact that the National Coal Board, for example, spent, in 1949, only £54,599 for this purpose. I am not saying that the two are entirely alike, but at first sight this great disparity in the amount is something which causes one to wonder whether it is really justified.
I also raise the point of whether this is really calculated to be a form of

propaganda in favour of nationalisation. We get these posters, "Another Great Power Station by the British Electricity Authority," and the impression is given that the power station is entirely the work of the Authority. I think I am right in saying—the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that nearly all, if not every one, of the power stations which appear so magnificently in these advertisements were either planned, or started, long before the British Electricity-Authority came into being. My anxieties in this matter have been somewhat increased, because I saw a statement by an advertising consultant who is employed by the British Electricity Authority which I thought rather extraordinary. He said:
The advertising agent is in a similar position to counsel at the Bar. For ten years, on behalf of Edmundsons, we have been pleading the case for free enterprise in electricity distribution. We are now about to work for the nationalised industry in the Midlands area, and to plead the case for nationalisation. Turncoats? Not at all. There are points to be made on both sides of this argument, and we shall now make the points for the other side. …
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Authority to consider the statement of this gentleman, because I hope we can have an assurance that it will not be continued.
I wish to say a word about research and, here, I hope I can be objective—[Laughter.] I should have said that I hope I can be particularly objective. As far as I can see the authority is spending £55,576 in the year under review of the Report on research. I happen to be keen on research and for many years I have cast rather envious eyes on the tremendous research allocations of the great companies in the United States. I have noticed with great encouragement that in recent years the big companies here have been doing the same, for example, one of the big electric power groups spends £1 million a year, and I.C.I, spend £4 million a year, on research and development. I am wondering whether the figure of £55,000, which is all I can find either for the Central Council or area boards is all that is spent on research.
With regard to the actual organisation of research, I congratulate the Board on appointing Sir Harold Hartley as Chairman of the Research Council. I must admit I am somewhat prejudiced in this


matter because I appointed him as head of a similar council, the Chemical Warfare Department when we were working on F.I.D.O. and P.L.U.T.O. and I have the greatest opinion of his capacity. I see that Sir Geoffrey Taylor, one of the finest mathematical physicists of Cambridge, is also a member of the Board. I hope we shall have good results from this Council. I would like to go into detail on this subject, but I cannot do so.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I can give the right hon. Gentleman the figures; £55,000 does not include direct research by the Authority in its own generating stations or transmitting stations; there is more than that. The figure this year is £250,000, of which £70,000 is for generating stations, and so on. I think that is about as rapid a development as can be expected.

Mr. Lloyd: When I look at the qualifications of the members of the Authority—I speak with some sympathy because, once any body of English people is constituted into a public board they develop great loyalty to the institution, and I am sure they are working very hard. I find that they are very high in many respects. There are Lord Citrine, Sir Henry Self, a distinguished civil servant, Sir John Hacking, a distinguished engineer, and Mr. Bussey, a distinguished technical trade unionist—they are the full-time members of the Board, and then there are the part-time chairmen of the area boards—but I am struck by the fact that I cannot find a single person who represents purely business or managerial abilities. In the case of a board of this nature I believe that there is something lacking when, in addition to the rich variety of talent at present represented upon it, there is not someone who contributes the hard-headed managerial side. I would ask the Minister to consider whether, at some future time, that point might not be remedied.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Tomney: The Minister was rather apologetic in his introductory remarks about this Report. I assure him that he need not have been because this is an excellent Report. If the progress outlined in this first Report can be maintained, this country will quickly become the foremost in the world in the generation and

distribution of electricity. The Report covers a wide and comprehensive field, and Members will wish to speak on various aspects. If, as I proceed, I introduce certain new notes, I hope that the Minister will take due note of them, because they will be issues of fact affecting the general public and it is by its capacity to serve the interests of the general public that the success or otherwise of the British Electricity Authority will eventually be measured.
The Minister outlined in some detail the need for the nationalisation of the industry and the necessity for agricultural electrification. In these days all Members of the House agree that it is our capacity to produce which will ensure our survival. The position of the consumer in relation to the benefits to be gained from this industry is something which is readily and easily understood. I know that we have only touched the fringe of electrical development. It is practically new—about 50 or 60 years old.
The most welcome feature, so far as our daily life is concerned, consists of the diverse electrical appliances which can help to make our work considerably lighter. These are in the hands of private manufacturers. We have the unique situation of the Electricity Authority of the nationalised industry developing the prime power while the appliances which use that power are being manufactured by private enterprise. To secure for the consumer the full benefit of complete electrification it will be essential for those commodities to be made available to the public as cheaply as possible. To that end I suggest that the Minister could, in the future, give some thought to the possibility of coming to arrangements with the manufacturers and the Authority for the eventual scaling down of the prices of the necessary electrical commodities and equipment which will make our lives so much brighter and will make the housewife's work so much lighter.
In the field of fluorescent-type lighting there will be great development. I was concerned with fluorescent-type lighting in its early days, from its inception. Its one fault today, above all others, is that it is much too expensive. We must find a common formula between the Electricity Authority and the manufacturers whereby we can quickly ensure the use of this great boon in our streets for direct


lighting in the public service. It is very necessary and it is at least 1,000 per cent. more efficient than present lighting.
The most searching criticism which one could make against the Electricity Authority concerns a matter which any Member of this House who has been a member of a local authority has come up against. I refer to the difficulty of the soot and dust nuisance. We know in some detail from investigations that it is primarily due to the low grade quality coal which electricity stations have been using during the last few years instead of the high grade coal which has been going to export markets. This nuisance has been widespread in practically every town where electricity is generated. The Minister and the British Electricity Authority are in process of developing and installing what are known as arresters to prevent this nuisance. I urge all possible speed in dealing with this question, because it is causing a great deal of annoyance to people in the vicinity of the electricity generating stations.
I have carefully read the staffing arrangements outlined in the Report. It is obvious that when one develops an industry of this character one must, in the initial stages, employ a great number of staff to get the organisation working and put into shape. I find, according to my calculations, that the ratio of staff employed to manual workers is something like one clerical and administrative worker to four manual workers. That is much too high. If we can establish a ratio of 1 to 20 for an industry of this character, we shall be able to reduce costs and make the industry more efficient. Taking a broad view, power stations, once established, are not susceptible to everyday change. They are static. I ask the Minister to look closely at this aspect of the matter, because the present staffing ratio is seriously over-weighted.
The standardisation of voltages and current and tariffs is proceeding. That has been required for a number of years. There is also the question of the standardisation of fittings, lack of which causes great waste and inconvenience when one moves from point to point and from district to district. I hope that that aspect of the matter will be tackled with all possible speed.
In the field of labour relations, referred to in the Report, benefits have been conferred. As one who has for some years been concerned in trade union negotiations on conditions and wages, I read with great interest the conditions which the employees in this industry, both manual and administrative now enjoy with regard to holidays with pay. I think it is well worth the while of the Post Office to note that only few trade unions represent the personnel of this industry. That makes for efficient co-ordination and agreement. Those unions are the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, the A.E.U., the E.T.U. and the Transport and General Workers' Union. They have operated on an area basis and a works committee basis. This industry has been absolutely free from labour troubles, which is a credit to the management, the Minister and the trade unions concerned.
We should try to extend the conditions accorded to these men to the whole of British productive industry. All manual workers are entitled to the same conditions as those employed by the British Electricity Authority—two weeks' annual holiday with pay and public holidays for day workers, and three weeks' annual holiday with pay for shift workers. In addition, they have full pay for a period of 13 weeks if ever they are seriously sick. Those are conditions which reflect the general good will of the Authority towards the men employed by it, and no doubt those feelings are reciprocated. At any rate they have been so far, because there has been no major upset in the labour relations between the Authority and the trade unions.
I now come to a point peculiar to London, and probably peculiar to the London Area Board. It is obvious that despite the advent of the new towns in and around London, there are just as many people coming to London today as ever before, and it is obvious that, due to the scarcity of building ground available, the development of flats will have to take place in London for a considerable number of years to come, if not permanently. We have a position wherein the same Minister is in charge of fuel and of power and, as the boards develop, it should be possible for them to get together on problems affecting particular localities-, and especially an area like London which is, in general, a city of flat-dwellers.
For example, the White City flats in my own constituency at Hammersmith represent probably the greatest conglomeration of flats on one site in London, most of them five storeys high. Every one is coal-heated and the difficulty is that the householder can store only 2 cwt. of coal. I suggest that, where we have to build flats in London, they should be completely electrified; that the Minister should get together with the British Electricity Authority, with the architects, and the local authorities to make absolutely certain that the electric fires, ovens and immersion heaters put into these flats are of the best quality; that adequate maintenance service is available, and that they are on a loan basis.
If we proceeded to adopt such measures it would mean that we should no longer have to transport coal from the pithead a long way to London, which is entirely uneconomic. London flat dwellers will have to face the possibility that in future their homes must be completely electrified, both for the sake of themselves, the national economy, the Coal Board and the Electricity Authority. Those are matters upon which detailed later development can be entered into by the various councils and authorities concerned.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, King's Norton (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) made the charge that we stated in our manifesto that we would lower charges for electricity. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. We shall. But there is a great amount of capital expenditure and development to be undertaken first. However, the more use is made of electricity, the cheaper it becomes, so it is perfectly within the bounds of possibility that within the space of a few years we shall have the cheapest tariffs throughout the world.
Where I think great praise is due to the Electricity Authority is in the magnificent way they have got on with the job, both men and technicians, in these parlous days of England's national economy. It is obvious that we must have electric power available to every village and hamlet in this country in abundant supply, because we are not yet half way towards solving our problems. Therefore I give this Report the warmest welcome, and if the Electricity Authority can carry on—as I think they will do if we can avoid

any international upset—on these magnicent lines, we shall be a long way towards solving our economic difficulties.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I must begin by apologising to you and to the House: I hope that I am not noticeably less virtuous than the average of hon. Members about actually sitting in the Chamber, but hon. Members will know that now and then one gets caught in a conflict of engagements, and I apologise for speaking tonight though I do not mean to be here after 7 o'clock.
I agree with most of what was said by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) except, perhaps, the rather excessive ritual eulogies into which he burst at the end of every alternate paragraph. I deeply agreed with him about the nuisance of soot and dust and so on, and if it is worse in the White City than it is in the Pimlico neighbourhood, I should be much surprised. I very much agreed with him also about the administrative costs—perhaps I shall return to that later—and the high proportion of clerical workers to manual workers and of administrative costs to actual production and distribution costs.
About the standardisation of voltage, and fittings, I thought the hon. Member was a little less than just to the past, and I thought there was also perhaps a moral for the future. It is easy to think that in your time—whenever that may be—things have reached, if not perfection at least normality, and that, therefore, you can fix them there. And there is serious risk—and even Socialists must agree a risk more serious with state enterprise than with other enterprise—that in pursuit of standardisation you may actually get something like fossilisation. Certainly, if voltage had been standardised too early it would most certainly have been standardised at a figure which we should now all think wrong. And the delays in standardisation of voltage in the years before the war were not delays due to the separate commercial units generating and transmitting electricity.
I wish to ask the Minister—at least I should if the Minister were here, and as I shall not be here all day myself I am not complaining of that in the least—whether great care is being taken in the pursuit of standardisation to see that we


do not run into fixing things too rigidly. Because my information from some old friends of mine in the industry is that they are afraid that may be happening. And as a comparatively small footnote to that, may I ask is every effort now being taken to try to influence from the aesthetic point of view the improvement of electrical appliances?
It is a curious thing that electric light fittings are rather like printing: it is in the cradle of printing history that the best things occur, what collectors call incunabula for that reason. I would not like to say that the electric light shades made in the 1890's were immensely valuable objects of art but, compared to almost any of the ones made now, they were surprisingly good. That is a matter which I think a centralised influence might perhaps be directed towards.
I want to say a few words about what the Minister began by telling us. I thought he was a good deal less than generous to his predecessors in title. We are bound to make these comparisons. First of all there is nothing else to compare this Report with except the pre-Socialist world, so that the comparison must be made. And secondly, all the Reports--the main Report, the Minister's own Report, and the area Reports themselves—have an awful lot of stuff about what had already happened before they took over and a great deal of stuff about what is going to happen when everything is going well.
So we also are bound to look back and forth in time, and we are bound to make these comparisons, and there was some want of generosity in the matter. The Minister made it a credit to his office and, still more, to the Authority, that the take-over had happened without chaos. To whose credit is that? I take it that nobody would doubt that if the previous management had been either incompetent or malignant, the ease and smoothness of take-over would have been extremely difficult. It would have been perhaps even impossible.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I said that it was a matter of congratulation for them all.

Mr. Pickthorn: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman if he said that it was a matter of congratulation for them all.

That certainly was not the impression I got, or the note I took down. I thought that it was a matter of congratulation to the Authority.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I said "to all concerned." Everybody knows that the vast majority of the people now working in electricity are those who worked in it before.

Mr. Pickthorn: But the Minister really is not meeting my point. If I may say so, this is really not quite worthy of him. He is now saying that it is a matter of credit to all concerned, meaning all who are still in the industry. Whatever he may have said an hour ago, the House has heard what he said just now.

Mr. Noel-Baker: To all who were concerned in the handling.

Mr. Pickthorn: That is quite different from what the Minister said before, or just now. My point is that it is to the people who then went out of the industry to whom really a very great share of the credit is due, and there ought to have been some moment at which that credit was specifically and plainly given. This afternoon might have been such a moment.

Mr. John Cooper: Who went out?

Mr. Pickthorn: A great many people engaged in the direction and management of electricity production and transmission before vesting day are not now so engaged. It is perfectly certain that if they had not been honest and competent men, the take-over would have involved a much heavier handicap on our industry and general social life than it did. That is all I am saying, and that, I think, ought to have been said from the other side.
Incidentally, I do not want to go into the rather small and captious points about employees and directors, and so on, but I think that we ought to be told about loans. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Report—like him, I have forgotten the number now—there is a paragraph about loans. It is there stated how much is still due on loans to employees, mainly, I think, for buying cars and houses. Upon that, I should like to ask whether really that is the best way of providing them with transport and housing. It may be that it is in many cases, but clearly there are objections to the method.
Secondly, the paragraph says, I think rather loosely or else with distinct want of candour, that at this date there were no loans outstanding to members of the authorities or the boards. If there ever have been such loans there should, in accordance with company practice and indeed, I believe, with company law, have been a statement showing the existence and the date of paying off of those loans.
Then I want to ask the Minister one or two very general questions. I apologise for being very interrogatory, but I think every one of us must be extremely interrogatory with these Reports. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must see that, in a sense, we can make the best of both worlds in our arguments on these Reports. If we can understand them thoroughly, well, then, that is to our credit. If we cannot understand them thoroughly, then hon. Gentlemen who may understand them better than we, either because they are abler, or because they are more versed in the matter, or because they have been able to devote much more time to them, should be a little tender with us and should remember that if there is to be any reality in what is called social democracy, if there is to be any reality in public control of these enormous concerns like nationalised electricity, then somehow the Reports must be made such that quite ordinary Members of Parliament—if I dare put myself in that category—should be able pretty quickly to get the guts of them and not to make any very grave mistakes. If I have not got the guts of the Reports and do make very grave mistakes, I submit that that should be considered a reflection as much on the Report as upon me.
One of the general questions I want to put to the Minister is this: many of us at the time when this enterprise was started thought it a mistake to separate so completely generation from transmission. That is not a matter upon which there need necessarily be any party line, although I think, in the main, the two parties were split more or less along the Floor of the House. But, obviously, it need not be so. I should like the Minister to tell us whether, either from studies of these Reports or from their knowledge of what has happened since the date of the compilation of these Reports, they are still certain that it is right that generation and transmission should be so far apart from each other as this.

Before I come to my main point, I should like to say a few words about what is called research. As far as I can guess, there is not really any research very much necessary for this purpose, in the strict academic sense of research. It is not primary research that is wanted. What is wanted is investigation of the methods of exploiting economically what the scientists already know perfectly well. I should like some assurance that it is fully understood that it is not really research which is, or should be, the Authority's concern in any very strict sense, but rather the application of it. And it is not to be measured by expenditure.
Then I come to the question which is less general and which I want to put. I begin by saying that nobody more distrusts my understanding of accounts than I do; if I do not put a question mark at the end of every one of my sentences, it is only in order to avoid monotony and not because I wish to be dogmatic. The accounts show a profit, if I may use the word. Apparently it is all right, I think, with nationalised boards, that there should be a profit. The accounts show a profit of something under £4,500,000, and that is taken as one of the reasons why the Report ought to be welcomed. I want to ask whether that profit really is a true profit. I think that it is extremely difficult to get at.
We all know that in the production of electricity the capital cost represents a higher proportion of the cost than, I think, it does in any other great industry. I think we all agree upon that. Secondly, we all agree that during the last 10 years, partly because of the faults of the wicked foreigners, without whom, someone once remarked, foreign affairs would be so much easier, and partly for other reasons, the value of money has gone down. That is another way of saying that the cost of everything else has gone up.
The Report admits more than once that the cost of capital replacement must be expected to go up, and to go up rather fast, in the near future. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would suggest that I have said a word that is not perfectly fair so far. It is with that background that one has to consider whether the reserves—which I think hon. Gentleman will find in either A.1 or A.2—


which, if I remember aright, are a little over £3 million, are enough, and whether the profit really is a profit.
May I look into the profit point a little further? First of all, comparing it with the last year of the pre-Socialist accounts, the Authority has an advantage of £3 million in a year in that it has that much less to pay in interest and dividends. I think that is right. It has that much less to pay. Then, secondly, the Authority does not pay, as was paid before, something getting on for £1 million to the ratepayers to the relief of rates. So that is something near to about £4 million which the Authority is spared.
Then, thirdly, since the Authority has the whole of electricity production and transmission as a single business, it is rather like the man who tucks away his winnings on the stock exchange in the losses on his farm. It is able to do that; if they were separate producers and transmitters, successful ones would have to pay Income Tax, but the Authority in this year pay no Income Tax at all. [Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head: the fact is that no Income Tax was paid. If he would look at the Report, he will see the fact, and the Authority's disquiet about the fact, where it says something like, "We are considering whether we ought not to have some kind of taxation reserve fund." I do not know how much it ought to be, but clearly something added on to the £4 million, because it is clear that we ought to add something, and I have heard it very highly put, in connection with another tax advantage: that is to say, the Authority has taken into one year's accounts the whole of the 40 per cent. of the initial allowance on capital expenditure.
I do not know if that is approved; I do not think any commercial concern would have done that. I think not, and I think it is a proper question to put to whoever will wind up the Debate, to explain these things to us and say whether it is true, if that calculation is right, comparing this year's accounts with the last year's accounts of private enterprises, that there is at least an advantage of £9 or £10 million on the public enterprises side as against the private enterprises. I know there is some difference of view at the moment and that some people will put it higher at £12 million and even £15 million.

I want to know whether that is true or not, because, if it is true it does not seem to me—or put it this way; suppose I take over a concern from any hon. Gentleman opposite, take it over as a going concern, and at the end of the year, I say, "Look here, I have done jolly well and made £400 profit"; when he could demonstrate that, in fact, I was saved £1,500 of unremunerative expenditure which he had always had to meet, he would not be quite so dithyrambic about my results as the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) was a few minutes ago.
I put all these questions genuinely as questions because I am fully conscious that I may be leaving out important factors or wholly misunderstanding something; but I think these are questions that ought to be put and I hope they are the sort of questions which we have always been adjured to put, that is, the sort of questions which shareholders would ask.
I do not want to go into the smaller points. There are rather a lot of smaller points on matters of advertisement and so on, about Haddon Hall and about it being re-christened Electricity Hall—with a wild flourish of literary ingenuity, somebody re-christened it Electricity Hall—all these visits abroad and picnics all over the world. We all know there is the sort of chap in every walk of life who does frightfully like going on jaunts, picnics and foreign tours, to luncheons and dinners and all that, congresses and conferences, but we ought to ask, just as any shareholder would ask if there were a very considerable element in a company's accounts concerning jaunts and picnics, conferences abroad and all that. I am not dealing with any other company, but only this one, and is it not reasonable that these questions should be asked? I think they are fair questions to put, though I do not wish to lay too much weight upon them.
I come back to another big thing—the intangible assets. The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the intangible assets. I have done my best, and I hope there is nothing improper about endeavouring to be familiar with an intangible asset—I have done my best to make myself familiar with them, and I have not been very successful. One or two things I think do appear about the intangible assets. They are down at £64 million, roughly speaking, and we may add on, for purposes of my present argument, the £5


million which is so-called compensation for the severance loss suffered by the municipalities.
There was a process by which the word "compensation" has been deprived of its meaning, to those who like using words for argument, and one of the steps by which "compensation" was invalidated for that purpose was that, when the municipalities argued very strongly against the Bill that they were going to lose because they would still have their overheads while large branches were taken away from their concerns, Ministers argued against that as long as they could, and finally said "Oh, let them go somewhere or other; we cannot work this out but give them £5 million and call it compensation."
If we add that £5 million to the £64 million, it gives us something like £70 million of intangible assets, including what was paid for municipal severance loss. I hope the hon. Gentleman is following me. That is being amortised over 90 years, and the question I want to put is this: Is that the best commercial practice? Can it be explained how this capital sum arose, because I do not think that is clear. I believe I could explain it and get it right from the Report, but it would take me too long a time and I could not be sure that it was right at the end; even if I was, hon. Gentlemen opposite probably would not believe me. Therefore, may we have it from someone with authority on the Treasury who could make it not only clear but convincing? If the hon. Gentleman wishes to do it himself, will he explain how this £70 million arose and why it is to be paid off over 90 years, and would he accept the assumption that a commercial concern would have said five years if it was frightfully conservative, 15 years if it was frightfully unconservative or foolish, and perhaps about 10 years if normal ordinary chaps but not Socialists? Why 90 years? I ask the hon. Gentleman, can he tell the House why it is 90? And I hope he will not say that it is because there is a period of 90 years of paying for stock, because the two things do not have any connection with each other at all. I hope he will not put up that argument.
If we add, on the facts that I have submitted as being open to correction, if we add to the £10 million or so which is for the expenses which the Authority did

not have to carry and which the private enterprises used to carry, the difference between one-ninetieth and one-tenth of £70 million—it is not a difficult calculation but it is too difficult for me to do in my head, and I leave it to the hon. Gentleman—if we add it, it comes to something very considerable.
That really is, I think, the main thing I wanted to say, and I hope in my endeavour to be clear I have not been too lengthy. There is one small technical point I wanted to mention and which I think ought to be looked at, although I will gladly give way if some legal expert tells me I am talking nonsense. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Why legal?"] Because the question I am going to put is a legal one, and I have the modesty to suppose that a peron engaged in another occupation knows more about that occupation than I do. If the hon. Gentleman will look at Section 45 of the Statute, he will see that the duty is placed upon the Minister to redeem the capital and depreciation of assets. The word is "and" not "or." There was a good deal of agitation at the time, but I could not bear to look up the Committee stage, because I can never bear to read my own speeches and I do not see why I should read those of others. But the point did not escape attention, and we were told then it was all right. I do not feel at all sure it is all right, and if hon. Gentlemen will look at Section 35, and then if they will look at paragraphs in the Report which refer to Section 35, they will see that the Authority is obviously very worried about the matter.
One can see how it happened. Of course, the municipal people supplying electricity paid off their loan from year to year as their asset got older and older, and they were thus able to borrow more money when they wanted a new asset. That was the right and proper way to do it. That is not, of course, how private enterprise did it. They did it by putting so much to a depreciation reserve each year in order that it should be enough in the end. What the Statute really makes Ministers do is to do both things. I feel extremely dubious whether, in fact, the Authority and the Minister are doing what the Statute enjoins, though I am quite prepared to admit that what the Statute enjoins really is impossible. If I am right—and, again, I am not in the


least tying myself to my opinion in the matter—then clearly there ought to be some revision of the Section.
This is the very last thing I will say, about this general question of depreciation. I thought I understood it very well when I just flipped over the pages of the Report very quickly. I made the mistake of lunching early today and spending three hours grappling with the Report, and I am not sure that I understand it now. One point sticks in my mind, and I do not see any way out of it. I hope the hon. Gentleman will answer it. It is quite clear that both the municipalities and the companies did, in fact, in the two ways I have indicated, save enough money, taking one year with another—to use the sanctified phrase—to buy new tools and machinery when needed. That is obvious, as, otherwise, we should at some moment not have any electricity, and the fact that we could stand up to the long lag of the war, I think, makes that plain that replacements had been adequate. But it is not plain on the face of the Report that the Authority is now putting enough money by, whether it is argued that it is putting by more or less.
In the old days the rule was that one must put by enough to pay off in x number of years laid down by the Central Electricity Board for some equipment—10 years for some, 15 years for others, and so on. But, in fact, that is not what the prudent municipal authority or company did. In fact, the one paid off loan and the other put away, either in the same reserve or in some other reserves with varying names, what they guessed would be enough, and more than enough, to cover any cost of replacement. The important point to the consumer is that the prices he pays from day to day shall be enough to enable the Authority to make replacements without putting up the price. That is what matters to the consumer.
I will not try to go through the accounts and explain them to hon. Gentlemen because I am not sure I understand them myself, but anyone who reads through the Report very carefully and who struggles with the accounts in an amateur and not unintelligent manner will be left extremely dubious. I think that the least the House should demand is some reassurance that in striking this profit of £4 million, and

so on, the Minister is quite convinced that the Authority is, in fact, putting away enough reserve to be sure of covering replacement costs, and not merely to amortise its physical assets for a conventional number of years. I am sure that is necessary. It was not necessary for anyone to insist on that in the old days because electricity suppliers and distributors would have gone out of business if they had not done so. But now the hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Authority are the suppliers and distributors, and if they do not do this we shall suffer all at once. I think it is our duty to ask this question every year until we are quite certain that the result is a matter of course.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: I thought that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, King's Norton (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) who opened the Debate for the party above the Gangway was somewhat inconsistent when he said that party considerations should not enter into this Debate and then proceeded to be very provocative. He was more concerned to justify what Conservative Governments had done before the war than to deal with major questions arising out of the various reports. Indeed, he did not deal with the big problems of the general distribution of electricity or of generation, both of which are major problems at this time. I believe that no industry is more important to the industrial and agricultural development of this country at present than the electricity industry.
I wish to look at these reports and at the position from the point of view of the rural areas and of Wales. I speak as one who, with my party, supported the public ownership of electricity, and I still believe that it is only on the basis of the unified ownership of electricity generation and distribution by a public authority that we can ensure the supply of electricity in adequate quantity for every area, rural as well as urban, at a cheap standard rate.
I wish to make some remarks regarding both the distribution of electricity in Wales and the problem of its generation. I will deal, first, with the question of rural electrification. At present, several complaints are being received from Welsh rural authorities about the lack of progress in rural electrification. It will be noted, however, from these reports that at least a survey has been made in Wales


of all premises more than half a mile away from an existing supply point, comprising 45,000 premises, and that, for the first time, I believe, a tentative design for a distribution network has been prepared. Furthermore, proposals for the complete electrification of North Wales have been approved, but, at present, only one selected section in each county is considered to be appropriate for priority treatment.
It is worth while reflecting that the total cost of the electrification of North Wales is about £12 million, and that the time to be taken to carry out that electrification will be from 10 to 15 years, or probably more. It is an indication, of course, of the lack of progress made in the years before the war. Indeed, in the matter of rural electrification Wales is far behind any other part of this country. On 20th July this year I asked the Minister of Agriculture to give the figures for farms with mains electricity. He informed me that in 1943, 27 per cent. of the farms in England had mains electricity, in Scotland, 11 per cent., and in Wales only 9 per cent. In 1950, the percentages were: England, 36 per cent.; Scotland, 16; and Wales only 10. The figures not only show how small is the proportion in Wales but that the rate of progress is very slow. How badly this position compares with that in a country such as Sweden, where 60 per cent. of the farms are electrified.
There are complaints of the lack of progress being made, and complaints of delays in answering letters, and of the lack of adequate information and explanation. A point which the area boards have failed to appreciate is the need for informing local authorities fully of their development plans. The Ministry is far too prone to act merely as a post office for the letters of Members of Parliament, just passing them on to the Electricity Authority or the area board. The Electricity Authority have no consistent sytem for dealing with letters from Members of Parliament. In this respect, they might very well copy the practice of the British Transport Commission, where all letters from Members are answered personally by the Chairman of the Commission. Members' letters might well be answered, not by the area board or by any official, but by the Chairman of the British Electricity Authority himself.
There is also the question of tariff uniformity. One gathers from the Report of the British Electricity Authority that the question of simplifying tariffs and working out standard types of tariff is being done. That is undoubtedly a big task. But there is no clear assurance in the Report that the object of the Authority is to promote uniform scales throughout the country. Paragraph 362 of the Report is somewhat equivocal. It says:
It does not follow that a complete national uniformity of charge for each class of consumer is either practicable or desirable.
I put this question to the Minister of Fuel and Power in a supplementary question some time ago, and he indicated that the intention was to work out a uniform selection of tariffs throughout the country. One of the chief objects of public ownership is to have a country-wide net-work, with current available everywhere, in the smallest village and in the largest towns, at the same price. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with this point when he replies. Is that to be the long-term object of public ownership of electricity? If it is not, it ought to be. In many parts of North Wales the current still costs far too much, and that, often, on the very doorstep of the generating station—if it is available at all.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Member has been referring to standard charges throughout the whole country. Does he not remember that, at the time of the passing of this Act, assurances were given that lower charges in Scotland would not be brought up to the much higher charges in other parts of the country?

Mr. Emrys Roberts: I am not concerned with assurances as to the position in Scotland, but I thought it was a principle of public ownership that there would be uniform charges throughout the country. I wonder if the hon. and gallant Member means to repudiate that principle by his intervention.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Has the hon. Member not read the paper delivered by Sir Henry Self at the British Electrical Power Convention, which I quoted this afternoon? One of the passages shows that in his opinion, at least, the difficulty of standard charges is so great that the scheme must be postponed for a long period.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: I am not concerned with what Sir Henry Self said, although he may be a member of the Board. I am concerned with official Government policy, and I am entitled to ask what that policy is. Neither the hon. and gallant Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Commander Galbraith), nor the right hon. Member for Birmingham, King's Norton, who intervened, gave any indication of Conservative policy on that point. I take it from that, that they are not in favour of standard charges throughout the country.
I next turn to refer to electricity generation and the proposals for hydroelectric schemes in North Wales. It is strange that these schemes are not dealt with in the reports from the boards, though preliminary schemes were put forward during the period which the reports cover. When I first read of these schemes I felt there was in them an appeal to the imagination, in the conception that from the streams and waters of North Wales we should generate sufficient current to light up our villages, towns and farms.
Since then, they have provoked a considerable amount of controversy. Surely the right attitude to adopt towards them is neither unqualified acceptance on the one hand—which some people have shown—nor complete rejection, on the other. Some parts of these schemes are completely unacceptable but other parts are acceptable. The main consideration is this, that the voice which matters when we consider these schemes is the voice of the people of Wales themselves. It is our land and our heritage; at present, there are far too many claims of a technical or Departmental character upon that land.
I believe the people of North Wales want to develop all the hydro-electricity possible, and that with sympathy, skill and real comprehensive planning that can be done in a manner that will not spoil the wild grandeur of the Welsh mountains and valleys. The British Electricity Authority have been singularly inept in the way they have presented their proposals. The plans, photographs and designs are woefully inadequate. There has been no systematic effort to discuss these proposals with the local authorities concerned, though some have been consulted; and there has been a lack of understanding of Welsh national feeling.
As an illustration on my criticism, I am told that one of the spokesmen of the British Electricity Authority, referring to Aber waterfalls said that normally the waters would have to be dried up when the scheme was in operation, but, when visitors were around, the waterfalls could be switched on for their benefit. It cannot be pretended that Wales, as a whole, is dependent, at present, on outside resources for current. On 10th May, the Minister of Fuel and Power told me that for the year ended 31st December, 1949, the consumption of electricity in Wales was 2,752 million units, while the generation was 2,823 million units. Therefore, one cannot argue that, at present, Wales needs these schemes because she is not self-sufficient in electrical resources. I know that demands are increasing, but coal stations are being opened or planned and we ought to know what their contributions will be.
My conclusion is that the development of Welsh electrical resources and their distribution will never be satisfactory in the hands of a body so constituted as the Merseyside and North Wales Area Board, because that body covers an area in which there is no real community of outlook. On the Report stage of the Electricity Bill, on 25th June 1947, I proposed an Amendment designed to constitute one electricity board for all Wales, and for Wales alone. The then Minister rejected that Amendment, but I believe that public opinion is now gathering behind such a proposal.
Such a body would have a real interest and a special stake and responsibility in Wales. It would have an incentive to promote and protect all the resources of Wales in one comprehensive programme without being too much obsessed with technical considerations alone. This, I believe, is the first legislative necessity—not a Private Bill for particular schemes, but a Bill to amend the Electricity Act in order to set up an electricity board for Wales. I believe it is only then that we can start to think aright about the matter.

5.42 p.m.

Mrs. Castle: The right hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) described my right hon. Friend's speech as one of unaggressive defence. Listening to the speech of the right hon. Member for King's Norton, I could only describe it as


one of unenthusiastic attack. Both in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and in the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn), we have had a series of small, trivial details paraded before us in an attempt to discredit the work of the British Electricity Authority and the area boards which is going ahead so promisingly. Indeed, I was very interested to hear, as a recurring note in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, a complaint that the fine work of the private companies had not been recognised, so that claims for credit for the achievements now being recorded—

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I did say of the Authority that I very much appreciated the way in which they had recognised the work of their predecessors.

Mrs. Castle: I was making a different point, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish. He was staking claims to credit on behalf of the private companies and I am, therefore, quite justified in pointing out that there must be some credit to be claimed for the work done by the Authority. We have before us an encouraging picture. We have a picture of success, and the right hon. Gentleman tried to obscure the fact by saying that in any case, even if there is success, it cannot be due to nationalisation.
I thought this afternoon we had a complete answer to some of the rather wild speeches made during the General Election campaign by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) and by Lord Woolton, who went up and down the country, and spoke on the radio, telling us, in one sweeping generalisation, that all nationalised industries made a loss. Now this industry has not made a loss, so the hon. Member for Carlton asks if it is really a "true profit." I never heard him inquire, on other occasions, whether it was a "true loss."
The right hon. Member for Woodford and Lord Woolton also told us that where nationalised industries did not make a loss, they put up the prices. Here the prices have not been put up—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—indeed not; the average does not show a price increase. Indeed, the line of complaint now is that we have not had a reduction of prices and—

Mr. Fort: If the hon. Lady will turn to the Report, she will see that the average price per unit sold has risen

considerably above what it was before the war and, indeed, was higher in 1948 than in 1947.

Mrs. Castle: I was not making a comparison with before the war; I was making a comparison with before nationalisation. I believe I am correct in saying that during the election campaign the right hon. Member for Woodford said there had been increases in transport rates as a result of nationalisation, but in fact there had been no increase at all. He, too, was making a comparison with the pre-war figure and not with the pre-nationalisation figure, which is the relevant figure in this case.
We have been told, with great shakings of the head, that if nationalisation had been a success there would have been spectacular reductions in prices and that this was the promise made at the time of nationalisation. Certainly that is the objective of nationalisation; and we claim that that objective is being successfully pursued and that we can already show in 101 cases—if hon. Members really want to get the facts and not to make propaganda points—that although we are yet in the very early days of nationalisation, there have been some quite spectacular economies.
I have been reading the Report of my own regional board, the North Western Electricity Board, and on page 18, in paragraph 86, there are a couple of examples which I should like to read. The first says:
It was anticipated that the abolition of the boundaries of the former undertakings would enable the Board to make arrangements to meet consumers' needs more economically. In one instance where a former undertaker had planned a reinforcement of the system at a cost of £300,000, the Board were able to provide the full requirements for £150,000 by using high voltage lines outside the area of the former undertaker.
The other instance reads:
To provide extensions a former undertaker had planned to spend £220,000. The Board, by utilising facilities which would not have been available but for nationalisation can provide for the requirements at a cost of £100,000. These two cases alone have thus saved £270,000 as a direct result of nationalisation.
There are two simple instances, from one out of the 14 area boards, and I offer them to the House as proof of the fact that there is evidence to be found—if hon. Members want to find the facts—


that already we are seeing successful results of this integration which we sought as one of the primary results and aims of nationalisation.

Mr. Bracken: Has the hon. Lady contacted any housewives in these areas, because they would have told her that the cost of their electricity has been greatly increased? Or does she not take any interest in housewives?

Mrs. Castle: I do not intend to answer the "have you finished beating your wife" aspect of that question. I will only say that reductions in cost of production are reductions in costs of production, and the fact that there are also other elements of difficulty in the situation, arising from increased costs of raw materials, does not offset the advantages of integration; indeed it increases the need for administrative economies of this kind. The point made by the right hon. Member is quite irrelevant.
I am one of those who have been pressing that more of the time of the House should be spent on the examination of our nationalised industries and, in particular, I have been pressing for this Debate. I wanted the spotlight to be turned on our nationalised electricity industry because I knew that nothing but credit could result to it from having the spotlight turned upon it and from seeing that the public at last were given some genuine information on the position instead of the propaganda prejudices broadcast during the election and during recent months.
The fact is that, under public ownership, exciting and adventurous new possibilities are opening out already on the technical side.[Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman's laughter shows that, as usual, the right hon. Gentleman is out of touch with the subject the House is discussing. His laughter is no answer to the facts of the situation. If only hon. Members opposite were not all the time so terribly anxious to repudiate and discredit their own publicly owned industries, they would be joining in this attempt to use this exciting new possibility to the utmost for the benefit of the consumers. I repeat, there are exciting possibilities on the technical side, exciting new opportunities for the staffs inside this great industry, and new opportunities for the con-

sumers as we go forward with our experiments in the techniques of public accountability.
The right hon. Gentleman who opened for the Opposition was a little anxious today because he was really afraid that a nationalised industry, as a result of the publication of some photographs, was going to get some credit for its achievements. His view was, "Alas, this is propaganda for nationalisation. What a terrible thing." Really, what this industry, in common with other nationalised industries, has been battling against in the last few months has not been propaganda for nationalisation: it has been a propaganda campaign of distortion and discredit which has been carried on by the Press and by hon. Members opposite. I should like to give just one example of this, because I think it is a warning to the public that, before they rush to hasty judgments of the situation, they ought to be aware of this technique of misrepresentation which is being used to distort the facts in an attempt to prevent them from getting to know the facts.
Some time ago there appeared in the "Sunday Express" an article by a Mr. Selkirk Panton on the industrial revival of Germany. It was headed with some dramatic title like "The smoking chimneys of Berlin are a warning to Britain." It was published on 4th December, 1949; and it referred in particular to the Berlin West Power Station. The article said as follows:
This giant station was built by the Germans in six months. British electricity experts in Berlin say that it would take four to five years to build such a station in Britain"—
the obvious inference being that, of course, the Germans, set free from their shackles, and allowed under private enterprise to forge ahead, were going to build a power station in six months, whereas our industry, shackled by nationalisation, would take four or five years.
A member of the British Electricity Authority, Dame Caroline Haslett, happened to have been in Berlin a short time before and to have seen that particular power station, and she had studied its problems at first hand. So she wrote mildly to the editor pointing out that the article was a complete misrepresentation of the situation; that, in fact, this Berlin West Power Station was built in the


'thirties; that during the war the Germans had planned an extension of it, and that when the Russians came they stripped out the turbines from both the original building and the extension to the turbine room; and she pointed out that what had, in fact, taken place was that into the empty turbine room and the new boiler house the Germans had installed two high-pressure Benson boilers, a high pressure generating set, and two low pressure sets. She said, quite mildly, that this was rather different from constructing, from the drawing board to the finished generator, an entirely new power station. Of course, that letter was not published by the Editor of the "Sunday Express."
I quote that to this House as an example of the way there has been and still is, a rushing into print or into speech by the critics of nationalisation with a hundred and one distorted charges and prejudices in order to leave just one definite impression; that nationalisation is a failure. But never by any chance, if hon. Members opposite and a large section of the Press of this country had their way, would it be allowed to leak out to the British public what in truth is going on.
I will give the House just another simple example. We have had the Clow winter surcharge scheme, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. When that scheme was introduced, it was not only criticised as being ineffective. That would have been fair enough. I myself did not like the scheme because I though it was unjust. However, it was not only criticised on various legitimate grounds, but in many quarters hostile to nationalisation it was suggested that this was a way of getting a little extra revenue and that, in fact, this surcharge would never be offset by rebates. That suggestion was made openly in certain newspapers. In fact, the revenue from the surcharge was never put by the various area boards to revenue account at all. It was set on one side for repayment to consumers in the form of a rebate. That rebate has taken place or is now taking place, and no balance of additional revenue is accruing to the nationalised industry.
So there are many ways in which this House, if it were really looking on this industry now as its own concern, to be developed to the utmost for the benefit

of the employers, the employees, and the consumers as well, could make a hundred and one constructive suggestions, and take a great deal of satisfaction from the picture of its development.
On the question of staff there is one point to which I want to draw attention because I think it shows how enlightened an employer the British Electricity Authority is. That is the graduate training scheme for the technical engineering staff. The Authority has got a very excellent technical training scheme out, because it urgently needs an addition to its highly skilled technical staff, which is inadequate in numbers at present for the vast developments that are taking place.
There is one point to which, as a woman Member of the House, I particularly want to draw the attention of the House and to put on record to the credit of the British Electricity Authority. It is that the opportunities being offered to graduates under the scheme are offered equally to men and women, and that the posts which will follow from the training taken up will also be equally accessible to the men and the women in the employment of the Authority. This is a sign of how enlightened the Authority is, and credit ought to be given to it. Those who in this House pay lip-service to this kind of equality between men and women ought to be adding their meed of praise to the Authority for this.
I want tonight to turn to one aspect that has not yet been raised in this discussion, strangely enough. I was rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman opposite did not mention anything at all in his speech for the Opposition about the opportunities for the self-expression of the consumers that there are under this great new public ownership scheme. I must say I am sorry that my right hon. Friend did not mention it either, because I believe that one of the most important by-products of public ownership is the opportunity that is given to the consumers to be associated with the work of the public authority in an organised way.
Now, this is something quite new. I do not think we have yet perfected the technique; but I would say this to the consumers of Britain, that it is only in a publicly-owned authority that they get any chance to be consulted at all.


Private enterprise in this country has no techniques of consumer consultation or accountability to the consumer at all, and that, in my view, is something which we ought to remedy in the future, and I hope that, at the next General Election, we shall have a chance to lay suggestions before the British public.
But here we have our nationalised industries, and it is becoming the fashion in certain quarters to sneer at the work which has been done or which has not been done by the consultative councils which have been set up to represent the consumer's point of view. Those who sneer at the consultative councils quote mostly as an example the work of the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council, which is, of course, a central body without at present any regional councils associated with it. But as we have gone forward with our nationalisation plans, as we have progressed from one experience to another, we have been moving forward in our techniques of consumer consultation, and in the electricity industry we have gone further than in any other industry, and are much nearer to getting a really effective consultation.
The House will be aware that under the Statute there is to be appointed a consultative council for each area, attached to each of the 14 area boards. On these consultative councils there are some 20 to 30 persons, of whom from one-half to three-fifths are local authority members appointed by the Minister, with the idea that the local authority representatives are those best able to represent the point of view of the man and woman in the street; the rest are appointed by the Minister to represent special interests in agriculture, industry, commerce, labour and some of the women's organisations.
I know that in many areas these bodies are still feeling their way towards a really effective activity, and I am not pretending tonight that we have yet got in these councils a sufficiently vigorous representation of the consumer. But we have got a very hopeful embryo, which I hope every hon. Member will take personal responsibility for encouraging in their areas, because I think that we members can do a great deal in drawing public attention to the existence of these consumer councils,

and in helping to make them feel more important and more effective. Certainly in the electricity industry the councils have got access, not only to the central authority if they disagree with the policy of the area board, but if necessary over the head of the central authority to the Minister. In some areas—in my own region, for example—the councils take their work very seriously, and the Press are invited to the meetings—and most take full advantage of it.
I, therefore, hope that as a House of Commons we shall be concerned to see that public ownership brings to the public a greater sense of having a say in affairs; and that we shall study these councils in our own localities and try to see how far they are becoming effective, or can be made more effective. The chief criticism of these consumers' councils is that the public is not properly aware yet of their existence, and is not taking proper advantage of their facilities. In my own region, when it was suggested to the consultative council that perhaps the public did not know where to go with their complaints, and did not even know they had a right to air their complaints, the council at once started to discuss with the area board whether it might not be possible for there to be displayed on the counter of every service centre where the member of the public goes to pay his accounts a notice giving the name of the nearest consumer representative for the locality—because, of course, under the regional council a number of district committees also operate.
Another suggestion that has been made is that the name of the nearest consumer representative might be printed on the back of the account which is sent to the consumer. There are a dozen ways in which the public can be made more aware of these councils and of their work, and I hope that the area boards in the different localities throughout the country will co-operate in helping to bring home to the public the fact that, thanks to their ownership of this industry, they have a right to be heard and a right of appeal through the consultative council, if necessary to the Minister himself.
I want now to make some suggestions to the Minister as to how we might improve the work of these councils. I think it should be made obligatory for them to admit not only the Press but the public


to all their meetings. I think we might have to bring pressure to bear on some councils to do that. One of the biggest safeguards for ensuring that the public are aware of what is going on in these councils is to have the Press admitted, and if it were put to them most of the consultative councils would not try to keep the Press out. It is wrong if, as I believe is the case, some of them are meeting in secret, and there should be an established rule that the Press and the public should be admitted to their meetings.
Secondly, I suggest that in order to increase the independence of these consultative councils their financing—the provision of their accommodation, their small secretariat, and their expenses allowances—should be borne out of the Minister's Vote and not out of the finances of the British Electricity Authority, so that they can be truly independent, and be acting, in a sense, as the agents of this House, on the one hand in helping the area boards to know what the consumer feels and wants, and on the other in conveying to the consumer some of the difficulties the area boards are going through. It would be preferable if the chairman of the consultative council were not a member of the area board, as he is at present. If he is a member, while it is true he is able to keep in touch with the work of the area board, he does on the other hand become a man of divided loyalties, whereas as chairman of the consumers' council he should be recognised as occupying a vital position in his own right, and one to which we shall give increasing status.
I am anxious to see these consumers' councils developed and made a reality, not because I think the Authority has become bureaucratic and remote; on the contrary, all the evidence I can collect is of the great spirit of service being shown by the staffs of the British Electricity Authority and of the Area Boards, in whatever capacity they may serve. I have had hundreds of testimonials to that effect, showing the way in which from the humblest meter reader up to the most important official there is a genuine desire to give a high standard of service and to have a spirit of public accountability, and nothing I say tonight must be taken as in any way reflecting on that attitude that they are showing.
On the other hand, if we do create these big public monopolies it is right and

proper that the consumer should be given new safeguards. Whereas the ultimate safeguard to the consumer must always be the careful watch which we in this House keep on the affairs of the nationalised industry, none the less we do know that we, as busy Members of Parliament, are not able to devote sufficient time to detailed supervision and contact in the various areas. I see these consumers' councils as invaluable supplements to the supervision of this House, and they must be taken very seriously by us and by the Minister. I therefore ask the Minister, in order to give them new life and new authority, to consider the suggestions I have made so that they can go forward and become more vigorous, more independant and more public in their activities.

6.10 p.m.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: I will not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) in any controversial argument. I want, instead, to take the House to another part of the world which has not yet been discussed—the North of Scotland—and to discuss the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. It came into this House with a measure of great approval on both sides of the House, and was piloted through the House by the gentleman who is now its very able chairman, Mr. Tom Johnston. The activities of the Board are watched with great interest throughout Scotland because on what the Board does will depend to a great extent the future prosperity of the Highlands.
I would like to start by paying a tribute to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. I think that it has shown remarkable resourcefulness in overcoming many of its problems. During last year it supplied 62 hamlets and villages with electricity for the first time, 12 million units were sold for industry in the Highlands, including agriculture, and the total number of consumers was over 222,000, which is a great achievement. We are, however, feeling a certain amount of uneasiness about the future. As the scheme grows it is inevitable that certain snags will arise. Hitherto, there has been a quite satisfactory distribution in the areas which have been supplied, but lately the Board has shown a certain reluctance to supply rural areas, and for a very good reason.
I have here a case in the Kilmorack area, a township consisting of 80 crofters, and it is pointed out by the Deputy Chairman, Sir Edward MacColl, that to cover this area will cost £18,500, with a running cost of £3,700, whereas the amount that will be received back from the area will be at most only £800. That, of course, is very unprofitable. In consequence, he has asked the consumers in this area to contribute £10 per head in capital charge and to guarantee £10 a year. No one has any objection to paying £10 a year. A crofter will certainly use that amount of electricity, but it is a lot to a crofter to pay £10 capital down, which, after all, will not make very much difference to the loss the Board incurs.
The warning that I want to utter is that this is not an isolated case. It is symptomatic of what is happening in one or two other places. The warning is obviously this: there will be a tendency to put increased charges, or increased capital charges, on local areas. I would like to know if the Secretary of State has any statement to make in connection with that matter. It will obviously handicap development in these local areas. The principle was accepted when the Bill was passed that only by the profit on the export of electricity to the national grid could the Board extend the distribution system in the North of Scotland to any great extent. At the same time, there is no doubt that it was in the mind of Mr. Tom Johnston and the House when the Bill was passed that the first category of people to whom electricity should be supplied should be the ordinary consumers in such parts of the North of Scotland as were outside the limit of supply by other authorised undertakings. It is very important that we should use this Board for the development of industry in the Highlands of Scotland.
There are three very good reasons why this should be done. First, to maintain and restore the population in the Highlands; second, with regard to the distribution of industry and getting more industry into the Highlands, which will also help the more congested industrial areas; and, third the strategic aspect. The most suitable industries for development in the Highlands are those whose raw materials are available on the spot, though this is not necessarily the only type of industry

suitable for development for strategic reasons.
The other day the President of the Board of Trade, in answer to a Question of mine, said that it might be difficult to persuade private enterprises to come up to Corpach in the Fort William area. I think that if they get sufficient inducement it will be easy enough. One of the biggest inducements for private enterprise will be cheap power. The tendency is for a tremendous increase in the cost of construction of the hydro schemes, and, therefore, a tendency for the cost of power to rise.
Mr. Tom Johnston hoped that electrical, chemical and metallurgical industries might be established in the Highlands. Lately, there has been uneasiness because of these increased costs, and that has rather tempered the high hopes that were once held. The tendency will be for the rural areas and industry in Scotland to be neglected and more power will tend to go on to the grid. Supposing that, in the long run, it does not bring a profit to the Hydro-Electric Board. It is true that a profit is shown this year, but I cannot find any entry at all in the accounts for depreciation or amortization. I would like the Secretary of State to give some answer on that point.
If we are to meet difficulties in the future of the kind that I have indicated, I think that there is need to take stock. We have great confidence in the Board as at present constituted, but Parliament gives its charter to the Board, and if the Board cannot provide for development in the Highlands, then Parliament must take action. At present there is a certain amount of irritation among those who are living near to these hydroelectric schemes because they are not getting the power they require. We must take advantage of these schemes to enable life to be better in the Highlands, to improve the amenities in the homes and to improve the amenities of the whole country by enabling the Highlands to make their full contribution to industry.

6.19 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: The right hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate for the Opposition spent some of his time in making a few little quips and pleasantries at the expense of the Authority for their activities in the field of public relations. Surely the criticism


of these large public bodies is usually that they are altogether too remote and too impersonal, and I should have thought that he might have rejoiced, in this instance, to find a public body which regarded public relations as a creative art rather than a disagreeable duty to be neglected and scamped whenever possible.
I am happy to pay tribute to the Authority for the care and attention which they give to this aspect of their work. I think they have shown that they are much the most alive of the large public corporations to the need of keeping the public not only informed but generally interested in the progress of the undertaking. If I had any criticism to make of them, it might perhaps be that their sense of salesmanship is too keen and their eagerness to convince too great, so that possibly they are running into the danger of arousing a feeling among people that they are being over-persuaded. I say this with particular reference, which I hope the Minister may be able to pass on to Lord Citrine and his colleagues, to the scheme now raising so much controversy in North Wales, the hydro-electric scheme in Snowdonia. I believe that since the Authority took over they have not been generating any more electricity in hydro-electric stations in North Wales, but the amount of emotion they have been generating increases almost from day to day.
We had this weekend the spectacle of the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) making an ascent of Snowdon—not, of course, all the way, but just far enough to reach a platform—where to the accompaniment of Welsh harps she orated in defence of Snowdonia. As a fellow Celt, with all the resources of Welsh history and mythology and literature to draw upon, I could have suggested various spirits of Eryri which she might have invoked. I was not merely politically disappointed when I found that the spirit whose aid she did enlist was that of the robust Liverpudlian, William Ewart Gladstone—

Lady Megan Lloyd George: He was a Scotsman.

Mrs. White: No. He was born in Liverpool—Rodney Street. He was, in any case, not a Welshman, except for residence for some time in my consti-

tuency. The views of the Grand Old Man on the hydro-electric scheme in Snowdonia might have been interesting, but I do not think he would necessarily have shared the sentiments of the noble Lady and her fellow travellers.
There will be another opportunity to discuss the details of this scheme. It will probably be out of order to do so on this occasion, but I should like to take the opportunity of saying publicly, what I have already told Lord Citrine and his colleagues in private, that I hope it will be realised that in this matter it will be wise to hasten slowly. I particularly emphasise the fact that these seven or eight schemes for hydro-electric generation in North Wales are not mutually dependent, but can be developed separately. I would most strongly urge that the Authority should not embark upon the most controversial of these schemes at the outset, but that they should take certain of the schemes which are not controversial in the minds of any reasonable persons, such as the Rheidol scheme for the Aberystwyth district. We can then see just what is meant by the construction involved, and the people of Wales may have a more adequate opportunity of judging whether they wish to have this kind of development in the Snowdon area.
I might also say, in passing, that we enjoy the hospitality extended to us by Scotland, but that it is not the same thing for a few specialised persons to take trips to see the development that is taking place there, partly because those who go to see these schemes have already made up their minds, and partly because the scale of operations at Snowdonia is so much smaller than in most parts of Scotland. There is not the room in Snowdonia to hide a mistake. One error of judgment may blot a most precious landscape in perpetuity. I plead, therefore, that we should have more evidence before we in Wales are asked to make up our minds finally on a controversial scheme, and that the relatively non-controversial schemes should be proceeded with as soon as is technically possible.
I ask that those concerned in this matter should try to take a balanced view. There are strong technical and economic advantages in rural distribution with the low voltage lines of the hydro-electric


stations. We also know that in North Wales our coal supplies are inadequate, and we should therefore make use of other means Providence has granted us for improving the standard of life for those who live in North Wales, not just those who come there for a short holiday period; we want a fair compromise between technical possibilities and natural beauty. We do not want to be asked to commit ourselves at the outset to selling our birthright of Snowdonia; nor do we want to appease those who are prepared to exploit the whole range of emotions for the promotion of their cause.
This may appear to be a matter of local Welsh interest, but those concerned know that that is not the case. We have had a large number of letters on this subject in the columns of "The Times." The matter concerns the hearts of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents in Birmingham who come to visit my native country. The noble Lord the Bishop of Winchester has also entered the fray. I ask the Minister to make representations to Lord Citrine and his colleagues on this matter.
I should like to say, in more general terms, that much as I welcome this Debate, a very important and necessary one, upon the Report of the British Electricity Authority, some of us have been a little disappointed that the undertaking the Lord President of the Council gave earlier in the Session, that we should have a general debate on nationalised industries has not been fulfilled. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle), for example, has raised some very interesting points in relation to consumers' councils. I am sure it would be of great value if at some time we could have a more genaral debate on the position of consumers in relation to all the nationalised industries, and not just one industry, so that it would be possible to discuss, within the rules of order, the comparative arrangements made by the different boards to deal with the problem which in many ways is similar as between one industry and another.
I am convinced, from the studies I have made of consumer representation, that it will be extremely difficult to secure any satisfactory basis until it can be linked up with the popularly elected local

government bodies in the country. We have a most virile system of local government, and sometimes it is complained that we are removing certain functions from our local authorities. Surely this is a sphere in which our local authorities might be revived, if that is necessary. Surely this is something in which they might find a fresh field for service to the public, and something whereby the public may find a fresh link with their representatives.
I have in mind that in county or county boroughs the consumers should be able to turn to the county hall, or to the town hall, and know to whom they can make their suggestions and complaints. The fact that the person they are dealing with will be a popularly elected representative will give this matter the publicity which it does not at present receive. For example, I have here a quotation from a letter from a member of an electricity consumers' consultative council, in which she says:
Most members like myself have not been approached by a simple consumer, due to the fact that the public are largely unaware of our existence. The Press has not been co-operative. This has not been done deliberately, but we have no news value.
As an ex-journalist, I can say that that is probably quite true.
I feel that we should have an opportunity of discussing the whole of this very important question both of the democratic representation of consumers in the nationalised industries, and the general protection to the consumers' interest, which is not quite the same thing. I am thinking, for example, of the question of price. We in this House are not competent to discuss in detail whether or not a monopoly of this kind is charging the correct price. In the railways we have the Railway Rates Tribunal, a quasi-judicial body, but we have not any such body in the other nationalised industries.
Even a body like the Railway Rates Tribunal is not necessarily a completely effective check, because, as I understand the work of the Tribunal, it can consider evidence placed before it and it can examine the accounts of the body concerned, but it cannot investigate the efficiency of the industry and the real price which ought to be charged with the cost which could be achieved in an efficient industry. In fact, this whole question of the protection of the consumers


in that wider sense is something which we should be discussing in this House on a suitable opportunity.
I do not think the opportunity is here and now, because we are supposed to be discussing a particular industry. I hope the opportunity will come, but I conclude by saying that even if we cannot discuss all these matters as effectively as we might wish, at least we have now, under the system of public ownership of these important industries, the opportunity, which neither this House nor the people of this country ever had before, to study in detail in these admirable Reports the workings of the industries on which so much of our prosperity depends.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Crouch: I should first of all like to refer to two matters which were mentioned by the Minister of Fuel and Power in his opening speech. He mentioned the increase in the number of poles used in 1950 as compared with 1938, and said that those poles were being used in the country. Did he mean that they were used entirely in the countryside, or did he mean that the poles were used in the town as well as the country. In other words, when he used the word "country" did he mean "countryside" or not?

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: In the countryside.

Mr. Crouch: The other question I want to ask is in reference to a difference of some 2,000 farms that were connected with electricity. The Minister, in his speech, made one statement, and the Report makes another. Between the two there is a difference of 2,000. Perhaps, later, the Parliamentary Secretary will correct the position and tell us which is the true one—that in the Report or that quoted by the Minister. In the Report the figure is 7,000; the Minister, I think, said 9,000.
May I turn for a few minutes to the position of the countryside? It is from the soil of rural England that men and women come to make this country great, and receive their infant nurture. In former times they quickly enjoyed the advantages of new inventions. So far as electricity is concerned, they have been left very much behind. I have always maintained that the people of the country-

side are entitled to the same amenities as those who live in the cities. Two reasons are often given for the neglect to provide electricity in the countryside. One is that owing to the scattered nature of our villages the cost of installation is very high. In paragraph 409 of the Report it is stated that while an average of only 10 people per mile are consumers in the countryside, as many as 300 per mile in the city use electricity. That I admit.
Another reason given is that in the countryside the majority only use electricity for lighting purposes. I agree that the cost of installation is high in comparison with the city, but, in my view, it is much higher than need be. In the first place, too much time and money is spent in surveys, checks, and rechecks at various levels. There is too much form filling and raising of objections by various people. As an illustration I would point to a case in which it was agreed that a new housing estate should be electrified, the electricity to be supplied by underground cable in order to preserve local amenities. Later, it was decided that overhead lines should be used. Today the part of this estate which is so far completed, containing something like 60 houses, is, on account of this check and recheck, using paraffin for lighting, heating and other purposes.
Having ultimately agreed on a route, the management and labour is not always economically directed. What business man would send a gang of men, on a Saturday morning, on an hour and a quarter's run to do one hour's work, and then have them journey back again? This has happened in the area controlled by the South Electricity Board. I suggest that no business man would have done that. He would have found a job near at hand to occupy these men and give them other work to do for these few hours on a Saturday morning.
Now to my second point. Electricity, when first introduced, was used for lighting purposes, but it is only during recent years that it has been used for power and that industry has made full use of that power. It will be some years before the inventive brain of man will develop the necessary and suitable machinery for the needs of the countryside. Those machines that are available are used to great advantage, but we have


only touched the fringe of the problem of the use of electric power in rural areas.
Another point which makes the farming community reluctant about the installation of power for existing plant is the frequent cuts that have occurred in recent years. That particularly applies to the incubation and production of poultry. I have asked the Minister to ascertain the correct figure of the new installations last year. According to the Report we have something like 87,690 farms connected to electricity. That represents something like 25 per cent. of the farm and rural users. If the boards will come out with a full policy for the rural areas they will find that the countryside will buy current in increasing quantities as machinery becomes available.
I understand that it would require a capital expenditure of something like £4 million to connect the whole of the area operated by the Southern Area Board. The interest on that sum would be about a quarter of a million pounds per annum. If that sum were spread over all the consumers it is surprising what a small amount it works out at. I believe there are about one million consumers, and the cost per consumer would be about 5s. each. If the whole of the rural areas were electrified the cost would work out at an additional charge of something like 1d. per consumer per week.
The production of food at home is more necessary today than ever before. The full use of electricity would not only cheapen production, but would relieve man of much of the heavy manual labour that he still has to do. When we have complete electrification of the countryside we shall have a happier and much more contented rural population.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Pannell: This Debate is concerned with what is called the public accountability of nationalised undertakings. I shall not go into the question of whether consultative committees are right but I will refer if I may, to one or two things that come under that heading rather than to make political points. Other hon. Members have said that they would do the same thing, but they have appeared to me to stray very far from that path.
Every hon. Member should declare his interest, and I would point out that it was

my job as chairman of the finance committee owning an electricity undertaking to look at the accounts of that undertaking for at least 10 years, before nationalisation. I suppose it was inevitable that nationalisation should have some teething troubles. I would mention the misguided enthusiasm of one of our area managers who took—and this is not a political point—all the lorries out of the municipal garage and, owing to an enthusiasm for private enterprise, put them into a local garage which employed non-union labour. My union had to come up against that sort of thing, which is not the kind of instance which hon. Members on the other side would seize upon. They would not say that nationalisation stood or fell by incidents of that sort.
I was interested to hear the reference to Sir Henry Self. I remember his coming to the annual conference of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants and speaking about the proposed structure of the nationalised undertakings. I made certain points at that time, which was some years ago, that I intend to repeat now. I think that the structure of salaries in the nationalised undertaking is completely wrong in the British Electricity Authority.
It started with a wrong conception in this House or with the Minister at the time by setting the chairman's salary at £8,500 a year. There has been no difficulty on the part of the great political parties in finding people who thought it was a considerable honour to occupy a position, such as Chancellor of the Exchequer, at £5,000 a year. What I am going to say may be an unfashionable line to take but when we call people to the public service in a great undertaking, and on behalf of Parliament, the salary level for a Cabinet Minister should be the ceiling for the chairman of the board. We should get the same sort of people appointed. Does the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) wish to make a point?

Sir William Darling: No.

Mr. Pannell: It is not necessarily correct that lay people managing an undertaking should get as much or more money than the technical heads of departments in that undertaking. Would it not


be better for the conception of public service if there were not that sort of salary? It has had a most unfortunate effect upon the British Electricity Authority. I have examined the pyramid of salaries with some care and I find that the salaries are all related to that of the chairman. I have a great personal regard for the chairman. We are fortunate in having a man of the calibre of Lord Citrine, especially as his origins were in the electrical industry, but all the salaries in the British Electricity Authority are set from that point and the effect upon the bargaining machinery of local authorities has been disastrous.
Some of us have been engaged for many years in trying to perfect a system of salaries in the technical, clerical, and administrative grades of local authorities. We have obtained a national charter approved by N.A.L.G.O. and by the Ministry of Health. The effect of the race for people from local government service was to attract those from the middle range of salaries at rates of remuneration 50 per cent. higher—in some cases—than those people could expect to get in local government service.
I made this point at the conference of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants in the presence of Sir Henry Self. I did not expect much response from the delegates, who were county, borough and city treasurers and who might have been expected to have a vested interest in the matter. But I was amazed by the number of treasurers who came to me afterwards and said that that had been their experience in regard to men who were now lost to their own authorities. I say, therefore, that the structure of salaries in the British Electrical Authority is wrong. Nationalisation will not succeed in the long run unless we get a new conception of public service into these undertakings, and particularly into the executive heads at national board level, comparable to the type of man we expect to occupy the Front Benches on either side of the House.
Another point, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. J. Hale) in an Adjournment Debate, is how far the gas and electricity undertakings of the country can integrate certain of their services. I do not believe either of those authorities can function

as a separate empire, particularly in regard to meter reading and other common services. The electricity undertaking will be judged not by a Bill on the Floor of the House but by the bill which is delivered in the houses of the consumers and whether or not too many people are running round reading meters.
The right hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) seemed to pay some sort of tribute to the private power companies which existed before the take-over, but until I drew his attention to the point he never mentioned the part which the local authorities played in the development of electricity. He suggested that the Minister had made an unaggressive defence. The local authorities have played a conspicuous part. It was significant that the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) rather tended to deride the point made by my right hon. Friend about the peaceful take-over—

Mr. Pickthorn: I must have been very unexpressive if I gave that impression. I was not trying to deride it at all.

Mr. Pannell: I accept that from the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that other hon. Members must have been in the same difficulty as I, about it. At the same time, he questioned whether the profit of £4,500,000 was an actual profit or not, and he mentioned the relief of rates which used to be given by local authorities which owned undertakings. That is all very well, but I can point to Tory local authorities which gave relief of rates while maintaining uneconomic tariffs when they knew that the industry was to be nationalised. In many cases such relief of rates was fraudulent.

Mr. Pickthorn: Where did that take place?

Mr. Pannell: If the hon. Gentleman does not know, I put it down to his lack of knowledge of local authorities.

Mr. Pickthorn: That is not true.

Mr. Pannell: In the greater London region no fewer than 33 authorities had completely uneconomic tariffs just before nationalisation. They would not put their tariffs up. Anybody who moved in local authority financial circles met the gibe, "Let the Government get the discredit for it." It is a factor which cannot be entirely left out of consideration when we look


at the way tariffs have risen. A right hon. Gentleman who used to be the Secretary of State for Scotland was subjected to a considerable amount of heckling at a vesting day dinner because he charged Scottish local authorities with doing that same sort of thing. Some Tory local authorities attempted to sabotage nationalisation before it came about—[HON. MEMBERS:"Oh!"]—and it does not lie in the mouths of hon. Gentlemen opposite to say whether this is a correct profit or not.

Mr. J. R. Bevins: The hon. Gentleman is accusing Tory local authorities of acting immorally in this matter. Will he also tell the House how the local authorities were not compensated by the Government?

Mr. Pannell: I am perfectly well aware of that, but the hon. Member, who has had much local authority experience, knows full well that that is a completely different question. The Government were hardly encouraged to treat the local authorities as responsible people when they maintained uneconomic tariffs in the face of nationalisation.

Mr. Leather: Have the Government to be encouraged to behave honestly?

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Member has not been here long, and by that rather foolish interjection he indicates that he knows nothing about the subject under discussion, or the local authorities either. The hon. Member for Carlton said that the relief of rates was a consideration which we should not ignore. All I say is that the relief of rates which occurred before nationalisation took place was tinged with the considerations about which I have been speaking. There is no question that the Government acted honestly. In 1945 the Government indicated that they in tended to do this, and once they had the mandate of an overwhelming majority of the people of the country, what was to be expected? From that point the party opposite attempted to sabotage nationalisation before—

Sir W. Darling: Can the hon. Gentleman give an example of a local authority which actually lowered its tariffs prior to nationalisation, preferably a local authority in Scotland?

Mr. Pannell: What local authorities did not do was to advance their tariffs to an economic level. If nationalisation had not taken place, or a Tory Government had been returned to power, the local authorities would have been bound to raise their tariffs.

Sir W. Darling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the City of Edinburgh we maintained our rates and handed over assets of £1 million to the Government?

Mr. Pannell: I had the benefit of listening to the hon. Member speaking in a Debate as far back as 1938 about the rising curve of public expenditure. He used to boast about the fact that Edinburgh's rates were 7s. 11d. in the pound. I believe that the gibe in the Debate at that time was that a certain Queen had "Calais" engraved on her heart and the hon. Gentleman wanted "7s. 11d." engraved on his tombstone.

Sir W. Darling: Surely the hon. Member is not deriding public economy. Surely he believes in low rates.

Mr. Pannell: Certainly, and, consequently, I cannot understand why it is that the ex-City Treasurer of the queen of Scottish cities should attempt to defend the practices of Scottish local authorities before nationalisation, in the way that he does now.

Mr. Osborne: Can we have the example?

Mr. Pannell: I have said that no fewer than 33 local authorities in the greater London area failed to maintain economic tariffs in face of increasing prices prior to nationalisation, and that but for nationalisation—

Mr. Pickthorn: Is the hon. Member asserting that they had authority to raise their tariffs?

Mr. Pannell: Yes, but they never made application to do so. It is all the same in the last resort. Everybody in local government circles knew that this sort of thing was going on. But for nationalisation, the tariffs would have been raised anyway. Anyone who had experience of the tariffs of neighbouring local authorities and private power company undertakings knows that it is true. I know of a case where a local authority was charging 2½d. a unit while the private


power company which was its neighbour charged more than 6d. a unit. It is largely the local authorities who have made the contribution in the past and it is the local authorities who have restricted the rapacity of the private power companies.
The take-over was a peaceful one because, in the main, the best elements of the industry were a form of municipal socialism represented by the local authorities themselves. The Government took over the whole of the outstanding loans as a form of public debt. I believe that the industry has served a great public need. A very promising balance sheet has been presented to us; it is not the sort of balance sheet about which the Minister need be unaggressive and we shall not be unaggressive about it when we continue to preach nationalisation throughout the country.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Erroll: Naturally, a large number of points will be brought forward in the course of the Debate, and the impression may thereby be given of a singularly ragged Debate. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not follow the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell), in his rather intimate incursions into the rating system, particu larly of Scotland. Before proceeding any further—

It being Seven o'Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS,under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further proceeding stood postponed.

GLOUCESTER EXTENSION BILL [Lords]

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed on Consideration of Bill, as amended [20th July]:

Which Amendment was: in page 13, line 6, to leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. MacColl]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

7.2 p.m.

Wing Commander Hulbert: The two issues involved in this

Bill are quite short but they concern a question of principle, and some remarks which I shall make were made in this House during the consideration of the South Shields Bill. Consideration of the Bill has already been objected to on the ground that it is sought to leave out the Section dealing with compensation for part-time officers employed by the authority consequential upon the Gloucester boundary extensions.
The first matter to which I would refer is a personal one affecting the clerk to the justices of the petty sessional division concerned, whose name is Mr. Vowles. After dealing with that matter, I will deal with the principle included in this Clause of the Bill. Mr. Vowles has held the office of clerk to the justices for nearly 24 years. One of the conditions governing his appointment was that he was not required to devote his whole time to his office, and in fact he did not do so. When this Bill was first promoted Mr. Vowles presented a petition to this House to be heard either himself, or through counsel, against the Bill; but as a result of negotiations with Mr. Vowles, his petition was withdrawn. It was withdrawn by a communication sent to him by the authority in these terms:
Subject to the approval of Parliament and to Mr. Vowles withdrawing his petition against and not further opposing the Bill, we undertake
to see that the Amendment which we are now discussing is included in the Bill.
That is the basic principle involved so far as Mr. Vowles is concerned. I would say that this personal issue unfortunately no longer applies, because, owing to ill health, this gentleman has had to resign his appointment. But the principle remains, and if we come to a state of society where an authority gives a solemn undertaking to a man to pay him compensation, and it can be written off and treated as a scrap of paper at the suggestion of a Minister, it will be a very sad time indeed for men and women employed in the public service.
The Committee decided quite properly, as was their right, to retain the Clause in the Bill making it possible for the officer concerned to receive that compensation. It was at this stage of the proceedings that the Minister of Health first made his intentions known, by saying


that if this Clause to which he objected was retained in the Bill, he would oppose the Bill on further consideration on the Floor of this House. That is the reason why important public Business has been interrupted tonight to deal with this issue.
I consider that the House has every right to protest against the way the Minister has endeavoured to treat the promoters of this Bill. The controversial Clause was carefully considered by the Private Committee of this House appointed to deal with the Bill. Just because the Minister, in a moment if pique, decides that he does not like the decision to which the Committee came, he has come here tonight to dispute it and to endeavour by a Parliamentary majority to get the decision of the Committee reversed. I think all sides of the House will share the view that if a Committee is appointed to deal with a Bill, due weight should be given to the findings of that Committee; and that it is quite wrong for a Minister to use a Parliamentary majority of the Government to vary the decision of that Committee.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): May I interrupt the hon. and gallant Member merely to say that I assume he knew of the decision of this House on the same matter in regard to another Bill.

Wing Commander Hulbert: With respect, an unopposed Bill in this House is, I believe, not bound by a decision of this House in any way whatever, and therefore the interruption of the hon. Gentleman seems to be quite irrelevant.
There is another matter to which I would refer, and it is no carping criticism of the Minister of Health; it is that the right hon. Gentleman or his Parliamentary Secretary got other hon. Members to oppose the Bill instead of coming and putting forward their views themselves. But I am very glad to see that the Parliamentary Secretary is present tonight and I understand that if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will deal with this matter.
Clause 35, which is the offending Clause, gives the right of compensation to all existing officers under the Crown or in the local government service at the time of the change-over to receive com-

pensation as laid down in other Acts. The difficulty so far as justices' clerks are concerned it that they are, I believe, in about 75 per cent. of the cases, only part-time officers. The argument used against compensating workers of any grade is that they have some alternative employment. But surely, if we agree that whole-time workers suffer financial loss in the change-over, then so far as part-time workers are concerned the only difference must be that their loss is comparatively less. Because it is comparatively less seems little or no reason to allow them to be cast aside and to have to busy themselves in finding some alternative way of making up the part-time remuneration which they formerly received.
In the provisions under the 1948 Act, there is a stipulation that there should be a two-yearly review of compensation in the light of possible alternative employment that may have been found. If this is regarded as a sufficient safeguard for whole-time employees, why is it considered insufficient in the case of part-time employees? In both cases they work to the best of their ability in the public service. In fact, those who offer their services in a part-time capacity certainly are making a contribution to the economy of the public service.
The objection to the Amendment is that it would penalise former employees who, on account of the small areas in which they have been working, have in the past given their services at comparatively small remuneration on a half-time basis. Consider for a moment the cost to local authorities had all their part-time officers been remunerated on a whole-time basis. These people should be praised and rewarded rather than blamed and penalised for what they have done for the authority to whom they have given such generous service. If the subsection is being opposed on the ground of economy, it is regrettable; this quibbling over so small an amount would be a bad beginning for Government economy in view of present conditions.
Another point which will arise if the Minister gets his way is the insecurity of officers. If a man renders good service to the public, surely he is entitled to think that he will receive reward for that work and that he will not be cast out on the streets through no fault of his own because the authority for which he is working seeks to extend its boundaries.
I understand that the number of people who would be affected by the subsection probably is not more than 500. I hope, therefore, that both the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) and the Parliamentary Secretary will not oppose what I am saying and thereby will help to give a just reward to a few hundred people who would suffer very badly by the deletion of the subsection.
My third point is concerned with the legal question of the definition of "employment." A justices' clerk or other employee of the justices does not fall under the category of officers who are eligible for compensation; he is employed by the justices themselves and is paid by them. It will be within the recollection of the House that when Part III of the Justices of the Peace Act of last year comes into operation, those people will continue to be employed by the magistrates' court. That is a serious defect, but this is not the time to refer to it.
I very much hope that the Minister will be able to meet the points which I have made. I really cannot see how his Department can differentiate on an issue such as this between people who were employed full-time and those who were only part-time employees. We have before us the instance of compensation being paid to an officer of a Government Department during the last few weeks—and compensation at a very high rate. I hope that the Minister's reply will be satisfactory and that it will not be necessary for my hon. Friends and myself to divide the House.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: As the House well knows, I have the honour to represent the ancient and honourable city of Gloucester which at present is so very prosperous as a result of the policy of the Labour Government. On the particular matter which is now before the House, I am sorry that I have to disappoint the hon. and gallant Member for Stockport, North (Wing Commander Hulbert). My instructions, from the Gloucester City Council, are that they are quite prepared to accept the Bill with Clause 35, having subsection (5) excluded from that Clause. That means, in other words, that as far as the Bill is concerned, any claim under it for part-time compensation goes.
The Bill is a very modest one. It merely seeks to add a further 700 acres by way of extension to the present boundaries of the City of Gloucester. Having regard to its present prosperity and development, that area is really too small for the pressing and immediate needs of the city. The land is required for housing, schools, sewerage, roads and—

Mr. Speaker: The purpose of the Bill cannot be discussed. We are discussing subsection (5) of a particular Clause.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: There is no person who will be prejudiced by the exclusion of subsection (5), which was really intended to cover the justices' clerk concerned. Whilst it is true that the subsection includes also other persons such as the assistant clerk, the collecting clerk of the justices, and the Secretary of the local licensing planning committee, there is in fact not one person who can or will be affected by the exclusion from the Bill of the subsection. Mr. Vowles, the clerk to the justices in question, has resigned from that office, and, therefore, it is clear that no one now remains who can possibly be affected by any question or claim of part-time compensation. The controversy over Clause 35 of the Bill is, therefore, very artificial and is really dead so far as concerns the possibility of anyone benefiting from it if the provision remained.
It has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Southport, North, that the Gloucester City Council were wrong in first of all intimating to Mr. Vowles that they would include his claim and now going back on that undertaking. That assertion can hardly be substantiated, however, in view of what has happened. In any case, the City Council must submit to the principle of compensation which is involved in this particular matter; that is to say, there can be no doubt that for some years, in many public as well as in private Acts, the claim for part-time compensation has been excluded.
The recent South Shields Bill and the Derby Bill, for example, excluded any claim for part-time compensation. The Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, the recent Transport Act, the Gas Act, the Electricity Act and even the Justices of the Peace Act excluded this principle of part-time compensation. In addition, it has been excluded as regards transfers of


local government officers under the National Health Act, the National Assistance Act, 1946, the Children Act and the River Boards Act—all in 1948. It is perfectly clear that the whole modern trend has been not to accept claims for part-time compensation and a substantial practice has grown up, in that respect, excluding all such claims.

Dr. Hill: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether it is a fact that the Local Government Act, 1933, still on the Statute Book, provides for the compensation of part-time officers?

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The hon. Member is very impatient I am coming to that point. It is going to be an observation of mine that that Section ought to have been repealed. It is clear that Clause 35 of this Gloucester Extension Bill accepts the principle of whole-time compensation only, with the exception of one small matter that is in subsection (5) and which relates only to the handful of people I have already mentioned. Therefore, this attempt now to insist upon subsection (5) is really an effort to impose upon the Bill an absolute contradiction because Clause 35, with the exception of subsection (5), sets out, more or less in conformity with the Local Government Compensation Regulations of 1948, the identical principle there established. To subjoin to that provision the exclusion from it of one or two people is a most objectionable form of discrimination and cannot be supported.
The hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) has referred to Section 150 of the 1933 Act. That Section is still law and it is correct to point out that the provisions of that particular Section do include part-time local government officers for compensation as there provided. It does not say so in express terms, but it does not expressly exclude it, and I think it is clear that the language of the Section does plainly include it, as far as purposes of compensation are concerned on the extension of boundaries, or the transfer of functions. One thing such an officer has to do is to prove that he has suffered pecuniary loss. If he satisfies that condition his claim has to be considered.
But Section 150 pays no regard whatever to length of service, the age of the claimant, or to the earning capacity of

the claimant. The House will realise that there have been many changes since 1933. The world has moved quite a long way since then and this question of compensation and the merits of the question of compensation have also moved with it. In the meantime, a Treasury working party have looked into this matter and have decided that on all the facts the 1933 provision is not at all suited to present conditions. For instance, under the 1933 Statute the need for the displaced officer seeking alternative employment was never considered at all. After all, an able-bodied, well-trained useful person at a time of badly-needed manpower is hardly a proper object for compensation for loss of office when there is ample opportunity and national economic urgency for re-establishing himself in occupation.
The idea of making a man a pensioner under those conditions without any regard being paid to his length of service, his age, or loss of earning power can hardly commend itself to any right-thinking or fair-minded person. In those circumstances it was quite right that the whole matter should be re-examined. It had to be re-coded and readjusted to a more realistic basis. That was done, and it was done by embodying the results in the Local Government Compensation Regulations of 1948.
When the hon. Member for Luton intervenes and mentions Section 150 of the 1933 Act, he has of necessity got to make a comparison between what obtained then and what happens under the 1948 Regulations in order to meet the development which has taken place and the adjustment now necessary because of that. The 1948 Regulations lay down that eight years' full-time service is necessary, either in central or local government; that there must be employment of the officer who is claiming immediately before the transfer; and that he must not have refused a reasonably comparable post. There is also a right of appeal. None of these things was embodied in the 1933 Act. Neither was the question of length of service, age or earning capacity, and so forth.
Surely at this time no one is going to attempt to support the 1933 provision in its entirety, having regard to that. It has to be remembered that Section 150 has been systematically departed from, par-


ticularly since 1937, when we got what we did not have under the 1933 Act, compulsory superannuation for local government officers, which was established under the Act of 1937. That compulsory system of superannuation did not apply in 1933 and the result is that, whereas before when a part-time officer was deprived of his position, he was not entitled to compensation unless he got it under the Act of 1933, now, under the provision of compulsory superannuation he will if a part-time officer get compensation in that particular case. Parliament itself has approved the Regulations of 1948 and approved the very principle which is sought to be embodied in the Gloucester Extension Bill by the Amendment. In addition, it has to be remembered that the majority of local government officers now come under the 1948 code. All this, of course, makes it all the more necessary and clear that Section 150 should be repealed.
In my humble submission it ought to have been repealed long since and the sooner that matter is dealt with the better, because the only result is to encourage sectional interests to come along every time there is a Private Bill of this kind and indulge in excursions to get compensation for part-time officers and to delay Parliamentary business, when that principle of part-time compensation has now been definitely discarded. For those reasons, I have great pleasure, on behalf of the corporation, in supporting the Amendment, and ask the House to accept the Bill as so amended.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Garner-Evans: I do not wish or intend to follow the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) in the vast and detailed knowledge which he has shown on the subject of the 1933 Act and the regulations of 1948. What we are discussing tonight is a very simple matter. The Gloucester Corporation made a bargain with a certain person that is the essence of it. There was a possibility of the clerk of a small town being deprived of his rights of compensation, and the Gloucester Corporation made a bargain with him that when presenting this Bill to the House they would include in Clause 35 a subsection protecting his rights. It was a bargain, and although the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester may have been instructed by his corporation, it is

the case that when that corporation's representative appeared before a Committee of this House, he re-iterated the fact that the Gloucester Corporation had made a bargain and that it was the Minister of Health who was now seeking to upset it.
When that subsection was included it was not thought possible that the Minister of Health would bring to bear the whole weight of Parliamentary machinery to crush this person and deprive him of his rights. That is what happened. I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to have a sense of proportion in these matters. There is all this talk about the 1938 regulations and the 1933 Act, but the simple matter we are discussing is really whether this town clerk is to be deprived of his rights—whether he is to get his compensation or not.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The point is that he cannot possibly get any compensation now, whether his claim is conceded or not. He has resigned.

Mr. Garner-Evans: When I said "town clerk" I meant "clerk to the justices." With reference to what the hon. and learned Member has said, it is rather strange that only a few days ago, when a Committee of this House had this matter before it, there was no suggestion that this person had resigned. In fact, the representative of the Gloucester Corporation made it quite clear to the Committee that the Corporation still wished to retain this subsection in Clause 35 in order to protect the rights of that person. Apparently, there is conflicting evidence on this point.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: There is no conflicting evidence. It is quite definite that this man has resigned and that any claim by him is no longer possible. That is not an issue in this matter any longer.

Mr. Garner-Evans: It is very strange that this person, who knew the position and was, in fact, moving towards a petition against this Bill in this House to protect his rights, should suddenly and rather conveniently resign from his position. It is unfortunate for those of us who have gone into the case suddenly to be confronted with facts of that kind. I still say that I, at least, am not satisfied by any evidence. I beg the Parliamentary Secretary, for the sake of this clerk, whether he has resigned or not, to see that he gets his compensation.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: The hon. Member for Denbigh (Mr. Garner-Evans) has hung the whole of his case upon the circumstances of this justices' clerk. I ask him and the House to accept the obvious and perfectly plain point that as that person has resigned that line of objection to this subsection is really quite insupportable. Had he not resigned, it might have remained a cogent and relevant consideration, but it does not arise. The consequence of that is that we are left to consider the principle behind this subsection as a matter of principle, and not in connection with any personal case.
I take the view that this subsection is strongly to be objected to as a matter of principle. I go so far as to say that the only good excuse for it was that there was a certain case in the minds of the promoters. Now that that person has resigned, the only excuse for the subsection vanishes, because, apart from the subsection we are considering, Clause 35 applies the provisions of the Local Government Act Regulations, 1948. This subsection is merely an attempt to graft upon the Clause a part of an earlier code, that contained in the Local Government Act, 1944. If the subsection remained in the Bill it would have the consequence of making the position of the officials referred to in the subsection entirely distinctive and anomalous. They would have advantages which no equivalent officers, or very few, anywhere else in the country would have.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) pointed out that under the Local Government Act Regulations, 1948, and under the Transport Act—the same is true under the National Assistance Act, and in the cases of persons losing office as a consequence of the transfer of duties on the introduction of the National Health Service—no compensation is given to part-time servants. If this subsection remains in the Bill it will place the officers to whom it applies in an entirely anomalous position.

Wing Commander Hulbert: Is it not a fact that justices' clerks are not local government officers and are not servants of the Crown?

Mr. Irvine: I admit that that is true. The subsection purports to constitute

them local government officials for present purposes. That is one of the reasons for objecting to it. The fact remains that if this subsection remained in the Bill the officers referred to in it would be placed in an entirely distinctive and invidious position in relation to all their fellows. It is entirely wrong that such an exception should be made.
It is true that justices' clerks have the distinctive feature that by far the greatest proportion of them are part-time—the hon. and gallant Member for Stockport, North (Wing Commander Hulbert), has said about 75 per cent., and no doubt he has authority for saying that. The same can be said of other classes of officers who have lost employment and have suffered diminution of emoluments and who, because they were part-time, have not received compensation. I have in mind the clerks of assessment committees, the clerks to drainage boards, fishery boards and catchment boards. These were, in great numbers, part-time officers of local authorities. They lost their appointments as a consequence of the redistribution of boundaries and changes of that kind. They have not received compensation. As high a proportion of those officials were part-time as are justices' clerks.
One has the highest regard for justices' clerks. One knows and has had experience of the services they render. There is, however, an additional circumstance, which I beg hon. Members opposite to bear in mind, that justices' clerks of all people have an admirable opportunity, when they suffer a loss of office of this kind, of recouping their losses. They are in a particularly advantageous position for that purpose. Many a solicitor who ceases to act as justices' clerk and devotes to professional practice the time which formerly he devoted to his duties in the court, will positively gain pecuniarily from the change. It is quite unthinkable that a solicitor who benefits from ceasing to act as a justices' clerk because of the additional time he can devote to his practice—and this is quite a reasonable hypothesis—should receive, in addition to his increased professional earnings, this compensation under the Bill.
Finally, as I understand it, there are regulations still to be made under the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949. It was open to the House of Commons in its


consideration of that Bill to require that the compensation code of the 1933 Act should appear in that Bill, and the House chose not to do so. Regulations are no doubt being prepared to take effect under the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949, and those regulations will offer a comprehensive scheme affecting all justices' clerks throughout the country.
Is it not extremely undesirable, therefore, to introduce into this Bill, or into any other local private Bill, a provision in regard to compensation for the justices' clerk locally affected by the Bill which may be quite inconsistent with the comprehensive code of compensation which we can expect to find set out in the regulations being prepared under the 1949 Act? For those reasons I suggest to the House that there are strong objections to this subsection remaining in the Bill.

7.42 p.m.

Dr. Hill: I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) that it is undesirable on general principles that a clause should be inserted in this Bill as part of a general compensation provision, that Clause being aimed at the exclusion of a certain officer or group of officers. I also agree that only an undertaking entered into could justify such an exceptional course.
I want to say a word or two on the general point, following the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), who stated the position quite fairly although he emphasised unduly the significance of the position created by the 1948 Regulations. He stressed the point that there are in the law today two separate kinds of provisions, and this situation arises in part out of the conditions created by the South Shields Bill. This position, I suggest, was created by the failure of the Government frankly to cope with this position, by leaving on the Statute Book provisions which provide compensation under one code and, in a Private Bill, introducing a code which, though it has been in operation since 1948, differs substantially from the code in the 1933 Act.
I am not disposed to defend all the code of 1933 as against the code of 1948, though I disagree with the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman that superannuation has made a profound dif-

ference. Superannuation has been general in the local government service at least since 1922.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The point I was making was that before 1937 it was voluntary; after 1937 the Act made it compulsory.

Dr. Hill: The point I was making was that, although voluntary, superannuation had become general. So, as a change in the situation, it is a relatively small one. However, I will not take time to dispute that point.
It is time that, in some legislative form which can be discussed in detail in this House, a new code of compensation was introduced. At the moment we have the absurd situation that an officer of a lesser authority who loses his post as the result of a county review—a situation which may obtain in a year or so from now—is compensated on one code and that same officer, if he loses his post as the result of another sequence of events, might be compensated on another code; or, at least, a colleague working side by side with him might be in that position.
I suggest that we are now reaping the unfortunate fruits of the casual, incidental way of introducing a new code. Although it can be fairly argued that the Regulations of 1948 were before the House, it was in such a form that it could either reject or approve the Regulations as a whole. I think it is time that this House had an opportunity of looking at the details of a projected new code, that code to be generally applicable to all local government officers, whatever the type of employing authority and whatever the circumstances in which they lose their posts and so become entitled to compensation.
The position created by the South Shields method is one which is unfortunate and which, if allowed to continue in its present form, will continue an anomalous situation. It is one which, as has been quite fairly said, will be the occasion for controversy and pressure whenever the particular problem arises. I hope that in his reply, therefore, the Parliamentary Secretary will direct some attention to the general proposition and to the desirability of eliminating the differences between codes of compensation which might apply to the same officer or to comparable officers.

7.48 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I intervene merely to say a word about some of the points that have been raised in this Debate. Most of the subject matter has been dealt with fully by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) who, of course, was speaking for the promoters as well as in his capacity as a Member of this House, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine), so I do not need to cover that matter again.
In opening this discussion the hon. and gallant Member for Stockport, North (Wing Commander Hulbert) complained that the Ministry of Health had treated the promoters badly. There is no evidence that the Ministry of Health has in any way unreasonably interfered with the promoters of this Bill. It was understood clearly that the practice that had been established, both in another place and here, would be followed. While we agree that the Committee upstairs are entitled to take their own line on any of these Bills—we could not and we would not dispute that for a moment—at the same time it was understood that the Clause that had been adopted, both in this House and in another place, would be adopted for this Bill. I do not think the promoters would complain of the action taken by the Ministry in objecting to the form of this Clause.
Again I am a little surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Stockport, North, should have criticised the way in which this matter has been brought down to the House this evening, because it is the normal way in which any Amendment to a Private Bill is dealt with; it is not the normal practice for the Government to put down Amendments to such Bills. It has been the practice for a long time that they should be put down privately in view of the nature of the Bills themselves.
The real issue is a narrow one—it does not cover the whole wide field of compensation for local government officers generally, which was dealt with when the House discussed the South Shields Measure. The Bill attempts to deal specially with this small group of part-time officials whose position is analogous to the position of local government

officers, even though they may not be directly employed as such. I merely want to emphasise the view of the Government that, at this stage, it is wrong to propose to offer compensation for part-time officials, whether justices' clerks or local government officers. That principle has now been established in several comparable cases, particularly that of the River Boards Act, 1948, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill.

Dr. Hill: If it is wrong in any circumstances for a part-time local government officer to enjoy compensation, why do the Government leave on the Statute Book a piece of legislation which in fact makes that possible?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I was coming to that point. I was emphasising that analogous jobs done by the part-time clerks to catchment boards, fishery boards and drainage boards have already been dealt with under the new compensation code which excludes them from making a claim. Clearly, it would be wrong to treat these part-time officials in a different way. I accept the point put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester and the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) about the rather difficult position which arises when we have two compensation codes in existence. We desire to clear up that matter as rapidly as possible. In point of fact, the difficulty is more apparent than real, as I think the hon. Member for Luton agrees.
It is only possible for an anomaly to arise in about a year's time, and it is highly improbable that it will. However, I accept that it will be desirable as soon as the opportunity permits to deal with that matter in any reform of local government which it might be possible to undertake. In view both of the position in this Bill—the particular issue and the official concerned—and of the wider issue raised tonight, I hope that the House will agree to delete this subsection.

Amendment agreed to.

Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended.—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

(King's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.)

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY (ANNUAL REPORTS)

Question again proposed:
That this House takes note of the First Annual Reports and Statements of Account of the British Electricity Authority and of the Area Elctricity Boards; of the Report of the Minister of Fuel and Power for the period 1947–49; and of the Annual Report of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board for 1949.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Erroll: A study of the first Report of the British Electricity Authority makes it plain that nationalisation has done no good to the industry, to the public or to the consumer. At best, it has not done any very considerable amount of harm. The Authority has carried on with the old methods. Where it has departed from tradition, it has added to its costs, and that has been reflected in price increases charged to both industrial and domestic consumers. In support of that, I should like to point out that during the previous 10 years the average increase in price was only 0.8 per cent., whereas in the first year of nationalisation the increase was no less than 4.7 per cent. That increase was caused by higher maintenance and administrative costs. As a study of the Report reveals, administrative costs went up by no less than 14 per cent. as soon as the Authority took over.
Before continuing with some of my more critical remarks, I should like to put in a good word for the technicians. They have had a very difficult task in coping with not only the new generating programme, but also the difficulties of load shedding at a time of expanding demand. They have also had to cope as best they could with delays in the supply of new equipment and the replacement of old. But, of course, the technicians have had another great difficulty, and that has been the frustration caused by excessive administrative bureaucracy which has been built up. That fact is apparent from almost every page of the Report. All the emphasis of the new Authority has been upon administration. It has been "Self before Hacking."
I cannot understand why there should have been this great emphasis upon administration, because electricity supply is essentially a technical business. A great administrative task is not involved. This is a technical matter, and electricity

supply should be arranged by technicians and by managers with technical experience, rather than by administrators with technicians in a subordinate role.
The relative importance of the two types of individual is shown by two advertisements which I have taken from an issue of the "Electrical Review." One electricity board advertises for assistant administrative officers who are required to have no particular qualifications. It states that a legal qualification and experience of electricity supply would be an advantage, though not essential. An assistant administrative officer, with no particular qualifications, is to receive a salary of £800 to £1,000 a year. In an adjacent column, there is an advertisement for the appointment to another board of a district engineer who is required to be a corporate member of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, to have had a sound technical training, and to be experienced in the construction, operation and maintenance of overhead and underground mains and substations, up to and including 33 k.v. For a man with all that experience and knowledge, the Authority and its boards are prepared to pay only £665 per annum.
Who will run that part of the electricity undertaking—the assistant administrative officer with a legal training and a salary of £1,000 a year, or the district engineer with his corporate membership of a professional body and a salary of £665 a year? It is obvious who will run the undertaking, and it is obvious why so many of the staff feel a sense of frustration at the importation of all these administrators with very few qualifications, who will set out to over-administer this industry. Unfortunately, we see the growth and development of a vast bureaucracy, which is slowing down progress and development.
We believe that a great deal of time is taken up with meetings at board level and divisional level. Then the chairmen of the boards come to London to attend further meetings and, as a result, they are not in their own areas to give on-the-spot decisions. Paper work is churned out in London, elaborate minutes are kept and passed back to the areas, and a vast paper work system is developed. Those who have to supply the Authority and the boards know just what this involves, because they experience continual delays


before decisions are taken and forms of contract are completed. Also, as is common whenever a bureaucracy is set up, there is considerable delay before bills and accounts are paid. I think the Report itself also serves to show, if one reads it carefully, how heavy is the bureaucracy which has been set up. While I am full of praise for the technicians, I hope the Minister, in the coming year, as he looks at the work of the Authority, will see that the administrative side is kept in its proper place and is not allowed to swamp and inundate the whole undertaking.
I now want to turn to the capital cuts which have been referred to, and to draw attention to the fact that most of the cuts ordered by the Government are to take place on the distribution side and not on the generating side. I suggest that that is a faulty balance, because the distribution side is heavily overloaded. It does not get very much publicity; in fact, electricity supplies rarely attract the headlines, except when there is a disaster at a power station. I should like to give this warning to the Minister—that there is every possibility of a number of disasters at heavily overloaded sub-stations throughout the country, and every possibility of a number of "blow-outs" in heavily overloaded cables which urgently require replacement and extension. Their renewal has had to be deferred by reason of this arbitrary decision to cut development in distribution, but not to change the generating programme.
I appreciate that there is an urgent need for new power stations, as well as for new distribution equipment, but there is no point in building the power stations if the distribution network is worn out and in urgent need of replacement. I am not making any attempt here to deal with the desirability of extending the distribution network into the rural areas; other speakers will doubtless be dealing with that point.
It might well be asked—what do we really want? To cut the generating station programme, when it is well-known that its capacity is insufficient for the increase in demands made for electricity? Of course, we do not want to do that; it is not necessary, as I think we could get more output for the same expenditure of capital. Some of these new generating

stations are being constructed in a most lavish way, and many economies could be made by cheaper constructional methods. It seems to be forgotten today that power stations, in the light of modern developments, will probably last for only 40 or 50 years. These new stations are being built as if they were to last for 400 or 500 years.
Is it necessary to go in for extravagant architectural features, instead of exercising proper economy? Is it not really going too far in constructing new generating stations to insist on special types of facing brick for ornamental purposes? Is there any need for lavish and exotic internal fittings? Probably as much as 10 per cent. could be saved on the cost of each new generating station if the Authority only had the mind to see to it. The fact is that the Authority, and the Socialist Government supporting it, are intoxicated with the conception of building these temples of power all over the country, instead of getting down to the work of providing serviceable generating stations as economically as possible.
As further proof of that, one has only to look at the hoardings throughout the country and see the lavish programme of advertising which has been going on, seeking to demonstrate that there never was a power station in the country until the British Electricity Authority was set up. I am not suggesting that they need be ugly, but there is no need to raise them to a supreme position among the architectural features of the country at a time when economy is essential. That is the important point.
In 1948–49, nearly £500,000 was spent on prestige advertising, and, if that was what the Authority was spending then, goodness only knows what it is spending now on advertising of an unnecessary character and, in many cases, well above the heads of ordinary men. Some of the pictures of power station construction can have no possible value to the man in the street, nor are they particularly informative. They are examples of an extravagant outlook which is a by-product of the intoxication of the British Electricity Authority, with its large capital resources and apparently unlimited power to expand administratively.
There is a very big facade being put up. A Research Council has been established, with technical developments


of one sort and another, but there is not a single reference in the Report to any new technical idea. In the first Report, there is very little reference to research going on, because if there was we should have heard more from the Authority about it. When the new Kingston power station was opened, the P.R.O. handed out a Press statement stating that it was the first of the 25 power stations to be built by the British Electricity Authority, which, in fact, had been in existence only six months, but which was already trying to take credit for the power stations planned by the previous authorities. We can be quite sure that, if there were any results in technical and research work going on, we should be hearing a great deal about them.
I suggest that, in this country, we are lagging very seriously behind in our transmission technique, and that the British Electricity Authority, by having control over all the generation and distribution of current in this country, is losing a great opportunity of building up vigorous new research into new methods of transmission. I would like to see some attention given to high voltage direct current transmission. But this is at the bottom of the Authority's list of priorities, and instead, we are getting the mixture as before. It was announced recently that there was a proposal for a new super tension transmission line of, I think, 225 k.v.a. In Sweden they are already building an A.C. line to work at 400 k.v.a. We are lagging behind in this country and making very little real progress, and the reason is because the technicians are being bogged down in the administration merry-go-round, with the result that the men at the top are unable to get on with the job. Reference has been made to "Self before Hacking"; it is time it was "Hacking before Self."

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Pryde: I think that my right hon. Friend, who opened the Debate on this Report, did so in a most moderate fashion, even though he described the Report as being labyrinthine. I think it is preferable that we should have a Report with all these facts and figures rather than one with insufficient information. It is better to have plenty of information than none.
On the whole, I think right hon. and hon. Gentlemen must admit that the first

Report of the British Electricity Authority is very complimentary indeed, and I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman who represents Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) when he says that nationalisation of the industry has done no good whatever. I cannot speak for England and Wales, but I can, for instance, draw the attention of the House to the first Report of the South-East Scotland Electricity Board. There, the hon. Gentleman will find plenty of evidence of the fact that nationalisation has been of great benefit to the people.

Sir W. Darling: The rates are up.

Mr. Pryde: The hon. Member is very prone to interrupt. If he cares at any time to come into my constituency, he and I can have it out there; or I will go to South Edinburgh and we can have it out there.

Sir W. Darling: The hon. Gentleman was referring to the South-Eastern district, and to the benefits we have received. I interrupted to say that the rates have been raised in that area. What has he to say about that?

Mr. Pryde: If the hon. Gentleman would not be so precipitate he would find that in the course of my remarks I intend to deal with that point. He comes from a city where rates are low. and everything else is low.
If we turn to paragraphs 47 and 48 on page 8 of the Report, we find that the South-Eastern area was the last to make any improvement. Why? Simply because private enterprise, which distributed electricity before the vesting date, mismanaged the industry. For instance, it bought a supply of electricity from Edinburgh Town Council at a fraction of a penny a unit but distributed it to the people in the South-Eastern area for 8d. a unit.

Sir W. Darling: What is the price now?

Mr. Pryde: We are told by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Altrincham and Sale that costs for the 10 years before the vesting date were very low compared with what costs have been since. The hon. Gentleman has failed to take into consideration the general increase in the costs of every sort of commodity and also in the cost of living.

Mr. Erroll: The cost of coal was rising throughout the previous decade, and it rose no more in the first year of the B.E.A. than it had done each year in the previous nine or 10 years.

Mr. Pryde: I refer the hon. Gentleman to previous Debates on coal. He will get an education in this connection if he reads them.
The company which distributed electricity in South Scotland before the vesting date allowed its machinery to deteriorate, and that today is causing a great increase in maintenance by the Electricity Board. Now let us see just exactly where private enterprise took us in South-East Scotland. Three supply companies, the Clyde Valley, the Lothians Electric Power, and the Southern Electric Companies, each led the supply out to the verge of the urban areas and left a great triangle of the richest agricultural land in Scotland devoid of any supplies. There was no legislation to compel any of those supplying companies to give to the people in the rural areas a supply of electricity. Today, the South-Eastern Board has promised a supply—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Yes, they are doing it, and no one knows it better than the hon. Gentleman who represents Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) and stays on the banks of the Tweed, because the supply crosses his estate.

Sir W. Darling: The supply to my farm was cut on Sunday last, and on the Sunday before, and on the Sunday before that, and it will be cut next Sunday—on the farm.

Mr. Pryde: The rich agricultural land in the upper Tweed valley has never had a supply of electricity, and in the churches and schools they have been working with paraffin lamps right up till now. It has been left to the nationalised unit to see that the large number of people there are going to get the ordinary privileges that the rest of us in the urban areas get. How then can it be said that we are not better off than we were under private enterprise? Time and time again, I endeavoured to get private enterprise to supply those people with electricity. We find in this Report that out of 350 villages in South-East Scotland only 240 have a supply of electricity, and we find it stated in the Report that rural development would be uneconomic to carry out.
There, in South-East Scotland, is one of the richest industrial areas, which is bounded by the agricultural area, in the Newtongrange, Easthouses, Gore-bridge district. Thousands and thousands of people can be accommodated in the hundreds of houses that have been built there with the greatest speed—the greatest building speed in Scotland. Yet today the great village of Newtongrange, with over 8,000 people, has such a supply of gas that a man has to get on a chair on top of a table, if he wants to read his evening paper.

Sir W. Darling: Nationalised industry.

Mr. Pryde: That is no exaggeration. That is a statement of fact. I ask the Minister to draw the attention of the South-East Electricity Board to the fact that the development of those areas cannot be uneconomic, and that they are bound to be, in the nature of our national economy, of the greatest importance. There must be priority in the supply of power. We know perfectly well that private enterprise has left us with so much leeway to make up, that there has to be a system of priority, and I suggest that mining and agriculture should be the first two priorities, and that the mining and agricultural areas should have priority in receiving supplies of power. I believe I can leave the Minister to see that what I have said is conveyed to the Board, so that we in South-Eastern Scotland will now get the current which we have sought so patiently for many years and awaited in vain from private enterprise.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Fort: I wish to refer to something which has worried me ever since I have tried to obtain mastery of the Report of the British Electricity Authority, and that is its confused nature. If the Minister does nothing else for us tonight, I ask that he will tell the Authority that when it produces its next Report it should be better set out, with an index, so that we can pick out the facts quickly and easily.
We have heard about many of the details and also about some of the essential things concerning the electricity industry of this country, and I want to turn to what seem to me to be essential things about which we ought to have an answer from the Minister when


he replies to the Debate—matters concerning the future policy of the industry.
I was very surprised that the Minister in his opening speech, seemed to be astounded at the way the consumption of electricity has increased in this country. If he looks at the statistics of consumption during the last nearly 30 years, based upon the annual sales as a measurement of consumption—which is a very accurate one—he will find it has been increasing at the astonishing rate of 9.5 per cent. compound interest per annum. Anyone looking at that curve knows that we shall inevitably be in great trouble unless we develop our generating and transmitting capacity quickly enough to meet this increasing demand. Partly as a result of war conditions for six years, when although that rate of increase was still continuing, we were not able to build up our capacity, we are now running very near the generating and transmitting capacity falling far short of this astonishing demand, which, as I say, has been going on for about 30 years.
How has the demand come about on this scale? The Minister said that there it was, that it was going ahead; but he did not attempt to analyse it. When it is analysed in the Report, it is apparent that, certainly since the war, a very large proportion of that enormous increase has come about from domestic consumption. Appendix 3 shows that in 1946 domestic consumption was over 13 per cent. more than in the previous year, in 1947 nearly 11 per cent. more, and in 1948 7.7 per cent. more. Yet at the same time for industrial and commercial consumption, in 1946 the figure was 2 per cent. more than for 1945, in 1947 there was no rise, and in 1948, the last year for which figures are published in the Report, consumption was 11 per cent. more than 1947, and much the largest part of that 11 per cent. was for commercial rather than industrial consumption.
Far from trying to strike a balance between the growth in the rates of domestic and industrial consumption, for a period the Government actually encouraged the growth of domestic consumption by removing the Purchase Tax in the Autumn Budget of 1945, re-imposing it only in the spring of 1947. Furthermore, during all this period, quite apart from any encouragement the Government may have given, we have

been short of coal in all our homes, and so have been driven to choose whatever means we could to keep ourselves warm, not only in the very cold winters but also in the warmer ones we have had more recently.
The problem of the balance between domestic and industrial demand is a very real one. One figure which brings it out dramatically is that the switching on of a one kilowatt ordinary radiator bar at the time of peak load means that one man loses his production during that time because it causes load-shedding, which shuts down the machinery. One important reason for this rise in the domestic consumption of electricity has been the pricing policy of the British Electricity Authority. As my right hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) pointed out, the price of domestic electricity is 9 per cent. less than it was before the war, whereas the average price of electricity for industrial purposes has increased by 50 per cent. If figures mean anything at all, that means that at present industry is subsidising the domestic consumer. Paragraph 340 of the Report gives the background to the reason for this subsidising of the price of domestic electricity, but the result is very striking, and is disturbing to the future prosperity of the country.
I have some figures comparing the situation here and in the United States. In this country we consume domestically 200 kilowatts per head per year, whereas in the United States they consume 300—one-third more. Industrially, however, we find the ordinary differential in productivity between the two countries: we consume about 400 kilowatts per head per year, and in the United States the figure is 1,000. Unless this fundamental problem of getting enough electricity for our industrial purposes and encouraging our industries to use more electricity is faced, our productivity will not rise as it ought to and must rise if we are to recover economically, and if we are to fulfil those hopes of increased productivity which have been held out by visitors from our businesses to the United States, and what we have read in the reports of the Anglo-American Productivity Committee about the need for further electrification in our factories.
What is more, unless the Government face this problem and propose a policy—


and it is the Government alone who can make a policy about pricing for the British Electricity Authority—not only will we not get the improved productivity we ought to be getting, but those who are most responsible for bringing on peak loads will not be paying for the additional capacity which has to be created in order to meet them. I therefore hope to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary some statement of policy about the pricing of electricity.
On the generating side, there are many questions which we should like to have answered, for we cannot find the answers in this out-dated Report. These questions affect the whole future expansion programme of both the generating and the distribution side of the industry. Is the Minister satisfied that we shall not be getting ourselves into trouble by standardising the large units being put in on the 900 lb. pressure and 900 degrees Fahrenheit boilers and generating sets? Appendix 19 shows that there are very few such sets—I think only one—at present operating in England. The 900 degrees Fahrenheit is standard, but are the higher pressure and temperatures mentioned in the Report experimental, in which case they are fully justified? Or are we going to place considerable reliance for the increase in power output upon stations equipped at these higher pressures? We have also heard about the present capital cost per kilowatt. How does that compare with those before the war? Is it equal to the fall in the value of money, or is it considerably more?

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I think it is more. It is three times what it was before the war.

Mr. Fort: It takes four years or more to erect a station. How much more is that than before the war? How much more is it than in industries with comparable capital expenditures in comparable conditions of foundation, and so on? If the figures are a great deal higher than in comparable industries, what are the reasons, and what action is the British Electricity Authority taking to bring into the electricity industry conditions more in line with those in other industries?
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) referred

to the cuts in capital expenditure imposed last autumn by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of the economic crisis—£25 million on the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry mostly on capital expenditure for electricity. Can he give us some idea of how this is to be spread and, in particular, whether it is true that it is to fall mostly on distribution? There can be few other industries—perhaps I need hardly say this to him—where a capital cut of this size will have a more detrimental effect on the general productivity of this country than in an industry which is as basic as coal or transport.
It will be interesting to see whether the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) is more successful than some of us in East Lancashire have been in bringing electricity to some of our more remote farms. I ask the Minister to have a look at some of these farming projects which have been knocking around for 10 years or more, although I know that six of these were war years. I have one farming area in my constituency where for over 10 years, a scheme has been delayed, to bring electricity to 30 farms in the remote and high ground above Burnley and the total cost involved is only £5,900. This delay for want of a very small sum of money is in the northwestern area which has the best record of any area in England for installing electricity on the farms. Even in the north-western area which includes most of Lancashire we still have 10,000 farms not connected up with electricity, and every other farm is still to be connected. For all the lead in rural electrification given by the old private enterprise undertakings before nationalisation there is still a great deal of work to be done in bringing electricity to the farms which are as much productive units as the factories to which it is being brought.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I regret the capital cuts just as much as the hon. Gentleman does. I must remind him that the Opposition said that the cuts made last autumn were not nearly enough.

Mr. Fort: I should be in trouble with you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I embarked on an economic argument. I think that the cuts could have come in other Departments rather than on the essential capital equipment of this country.


May I summarise what I and other hon. Members on this side want to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary? We want to hear a statement from the Government about their pricing policy, which is one of the most essential features of the whole of the electricity supply and its future in this country. We want to be sure that the money now being spent on capital equipment is being spent to the best possible advantage. We want to have an answer to some of the points that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale and I have raised about extravagance on peak load stations. Lastly, will the Parliamentary Secretary give us some details about the effect which the cuts will have on the present and on the future of the electricity industry?

8.34 p.m.

Mrs. Middleton: It is not my intention to follow the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) in what he said about the more technical side of the electricity industry. I want, for the few moments during which I shall detain the House, to speak more upon what I would call the human relationships of the British Electricity Authority. Unhappily, for the most of the afternoon I have been detained with important business upstairs, which has meant that I have only heard the first two speeches in this Debate and the last two, so if I make points which have already been covered in the Debate I hope that the House will bear with me.
I am particularly concerned about the way in which the consultative councils are working, and I should like to hear a lot more about the work being done by these councils. It seems to me, from my observations of the council which covers the area in which my constituency is situated, that they are far too remote from the consumers to be able to do the work they ought to be doing. I notice that, according to the Report, it is intended to set up local contacts, local persons or local committees, to assist the consultative councils in their work, but there seems to be very little information available as to the extent to which these local contacts have been established, and little publicity given—as to where they have been established—to the ordinary citizen as to how the domestic consumer can get into touch with these local representatives of the council.
This has meant, in my experience, and probably in the experience of other Mem-

bers, too, that one of three things happen when a domestic consumer has a complaint to make or wants advice on a point. In many cases such people go to their local councillors for help, and they may get in touch with the consultative councils as a result. A good many bring their complaints and difficulties to their Members of Parliament. Those Members who, like myself, have regular occasions when constituents can come and see them about their complaints and difficulties have also probably advised these people of the existence of the consultative council.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I hope that my hon. Friend advises them to go, first of all, to the local management.

Mrs. Middleton: I send them on to the chairman of the consultative council, if I cannot deal with them myself.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I hope my hon. Friend makes sure that they go, first, to the local management, because that is the right procedure.

Mrs. Middleton: The fact that these things occur, that people come to their Members of Parliament and go to their local councillors, is proof, I think, that the consultative councils are not at present working in the way in which we hoped they would work when the Measure was before the House.
I also find that a third thing happens, I have discovered this on occasions when I have been canvassing in my constituency. In some ways it is the more serious aspect of the matter. I find that many people who have a complaint just do not know where to go, who to see, or what to do about it. They simply do not know where to seek advice, with the result that it remains a kind of festering sore, which creates hostility to nationalisation and to the policy which has been followed by this and the preceding Government. Therefore. I ask the Minister whether it is not possible to do something to bring about a more direct contact between the consultative councils and domestic users. I hope he will take steps to see what can be done in this matter.
Turning to another matter concerning human relationships upon which I want to comment, I would draw the attention of the House to the considerable waste which is going on at the present time of what would otherwise be excellent administrative ability, not only in relation


to this nationalised undertaking but others as well. Owing to the superannuation scheme, men and women in middle life are often debarred from recruitment into the undertaking. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have had cases of that kind come to my notice, and from the assent of hon. Members on the other side of the House it is quite obvious that other Members, too, have had similar cases brought to their attention.
I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible for the Authority to find some way of overcoming that difficulty. We all recognise the importance of superannuation schemes, but we do not want those superannuation schemes to act as a deterrent and, indeed, as a barrier to recruitment of the right sort of personnel for industries and undertakings of this kind. This is not the moment when one can put forward suggestions as to how that difficulty can be overcome.
All I ask today is that the Minister should pay some attention to that matter, and see if, by more steeply graded contributions to superannuation schemes or some such method, it is not possible to allow a larger number of people in their middle years to give of their best in the service of these undertakings. Many of the men and women concerned have served this country very gallantly and very efficiently in the war years and I am quite sure that we should like to see their ability being used particularly in this direction.
The third point I want to make has to do with education and training. I am sure that every Member of the House who has read that section of the Report dealing with education and training will welcome what is being done by the British Electricity Authority in providing for further education and training. I only want to ask my right hon. Friend one question on this subject—whether, in the electricity industry, there is any parallel scheme of promotion within the industry other than by certification, under which a man with great technical experience and ability, but who has not been able to qualify for public certificates, can get promotion within the industry and rise to the higher grades.
I understand that in some undertakings there are such parallel schemes of promotion for the older men in the industry, who have not acquired

public certificates, alongside schemes for the younger men who are coming on, and who are being trained in the way in which we want to see them trained. I shall be grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary if he can deal with that subject when he comes to reply.
The other matter I wish to mention is rather off the points I have already raised. It is the Severn barrage scheme. As one who was born and lived all the earlier part of her life within a few miles of the banks of the River Severn and who was taken when very young to see the phenomenon of the Severn Bore and was thrilled by the marvellous tidal power of that estuary, I have always been interested in the scheme, which has now been talked about for so long for the utilisation of the power of the tidal bore in the production of electric current. My right hon. Friend, towards the close of his speech spoke of the tidal bore, and referred to the Severn scheme as though it were actually in operation.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: indicated dissent.

Mrs. Middleton: Of course, that is far from the case, and on the several occasions on which I have referred to this matter in the House by Questions on the Order Paper I have not had very encouraging replies. I should like to know what has happened to the model which I was told was being prepared. Has that model revealed that this is a practical proposition, and if it is so considered when can we expect to see a start made on the construction of the Severn barrage, and when is it hoped that a contribution will be made to the production of electrical power by that means?
There are other similar proposals. There is one for the harnessing of the tidal race of the Menai Straits. I do not know whether the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Lloyd George) dealt with it in her speech, but it concerns her constituency rather than the West Country. I would like to know whether models have been constructed in order to ascertain whether that is a workable proposition. Those of us who have been interested in this subject of tidal power would like more information on it than the Minister was able to give us during his opening speech.

8.46 p.m.

Colonel Lancaster: I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for


Sutton Division of Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton) will forgive me if I do not follow the line of argument which she developed in her very interesting speech, or if I do not attempt to adjudicate between her and the Minister on the correct procedure to be followed by her aggrieved constituents. It is a temptation to anybody who, like myself, was on the Committee which dealt with the Electricity Bill, to say in many directions "I told you so." I resist that temptation, and I will deal with only one aspect of the report.
Paragraph 262 of the report says that the cost of coal for the British Electricity Authority was at the rate of 183 per cent. above the pre-war price. A great deal was made during the recent Debate on coal costs of the fact that the level of coal prices had remained rather lower than that of many other commodities. Now we see that a level above that figure has been carried in great measure by this nationalised body, which took a great proportion of our small coal output. Therefore, in some measure this industry was subsidising the general price level and producing a result out of line with reality.
The question of ash content has been referred to. It has gone up by something like 4 per cent. Now we see some of the Minister's chickens coming home to roost. No one can suggest that the ash content in either dry slacks, which in great measure are only screened and are not dealt with by any mechanical means, or the ash content in fines and washed smalls, a greater amount of which went through the washeries before the war than during the period under review, can be put down to what was described as "antiquated and outmoded conditions" in the pits. The fact is that this nationalised industry has had, during the period under review, to carry the burden of inefficient production in another nationalised industry.
This is not a matter to which the Minister can refer in detail, but hon. Gentlemen opposite may well pause and consider these two matters of relationship between two nationalised industries. In one direction one nationalised industry is subsidising another, and in another direction a nationalised industry is imposing upon another a burden out of relationship to what is either reasonable or efficient.

8.50 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: Broadly, the Report has made a not unfavourable impression on me. It is a comprehensive record and it tells of not too bad a performance during very difficult times. I think that the performance is due more to the work of the technicians than to that of the planners, but it is not a bad record.
That is as it should be. The nationalised industry took over one of the best examples of private and municipal enterprise. It was a fine, going concern. It is still operated by the same men and the same team, and they are too good to be quickly demoralised even by some of the conditions under which they are working now. I hope that they will continue to resist any further demoralisation. I hope that their old traditions and loyalties will be reorientated in the new Authority because I believe that it is only by doing that and by carefully nurturing and developing that spirit, the sort of spirit that one gets in a good regiment or corps, that the nationalised industries will really be made to work.
But I find the Report much too cumbersome. It is too big for many people properly to study. There is a lot of meat in it, but there is also a tremendous amount of suet in which one has to find the meat. Also, much verbiage is spent in describing difficulties and too little is said about how they are to be overcome. I should like to see about three months after the end of the Authority's year a short statement, rather like a company sends out, of about four sheets, with the accounts and the chairman's statement, something which hon. Members could read in five or ten minutes and then put on one side; and have a bigger Report later. That would be much more helpful to the House and to the country generally, and, what is more, it could be produced more quickly and with less labour by the clerical staff of the Authority.
I agree that the accounts make an impressive array, but there are quite a lot of estimates and uncertainties among them, and it looks as if the preparatory work was hurried, to say the least of it. That is most clearly displayed in the notes on the accounts. On page 162 under the heading "Notes on the consolidated


accounts I was a little shaken to find the words:
It is thought that it will only be in respect of minor matters that the allocations in the accounts now presented are in any way defective.
That is a little disturbing. It says that, it is thought that they may only be defective in respect of minor matters, but that there may also be major faults. I do not want to judge the accounts on one instance only, and, therefore, I refer the Minister to pages 167 to 172 where in four different sections appear the words, "Has not yet been determined," showing that some decision has been arrived at on insufficient premises.
I want now to refer to what appears to be an under-valuation of assets. The balance sheets suggest that the compensation paid, plus the liabilities taken over, amounts to £60 million more than the value of the assets received. That sounds as if the compensation was generous. I want to take the opportunity of saying, as was said time after time when the Bill was going through the House, that the Government should have had a proper valuation of assets. But I do not think that the Authority has suffered in this case since I believe that there are a number of hidden assets which have probably been greatly undervalued in the accounts. There need have been none of this doubt if the Government had taken the advice of the Opposition and had a proper valuation of assets when the industry was taken over. I do not know what direction was given by the Minister when it came to valuing the assets. Appendix 40, which deals with it, is silent on the point, but I should imagine that the Authority were told informally to take them over at book value and that is the reason for this figure.
A number of people have talked about the excellent relationship existing between the officials and the staff. One thing which I do not think is so good is the pensions scheme. In the old days under company and municipal ownership 70 per cent. of the manual workers had a pension scheme. Today, I do not believe that any have. In paragraph 106 it states:
The policy of extension of superannuation to manual workers generally was one upon which the Authority and the boards awaited Government guidance.

Then, in a footnote, it states that much later, on 8th August, superannuation schemes have been approved for non-manual workers. From that I read that there had been no provision for manual workers, for the 70 per cent. who had them and who have now lost them.

Mr. Robens: The fact is that those in schemes remain in schemes, but the new manual workers are not in schemes.

Colonel Clarke: That is fair enough, so far as it goes, but my point is right, that in future new manual workers will not share in these schemes in which, in the past, they did share up to an amount of 70 per cent. I do not think that that is an improvement in labour relations.
Now I wish to refer to one or two good points about the Report. The diagram setting out the position of coal efficiency and the rise in coal prices is excellent. Appendix 34, giving particulars of electrical contracting and retailing is good and a model of its kind. The provision of a glossary in a book of this sort is useful, but an index would have been even more useful. The first four appendices, recording the development of the industry in the last 18 years of its un-nationalised life, is a not ungraceful tribute to the municipalities and power companies.
After this brief interlude of praise I must, I fear, return to criticism. I am profoundly disappointed at the progress being made with distribution of electricity in rural areas. In my part of the world I do not think there is much change between the rate now and the rate under private enterprise but we are in favourable circumstances in having a number of towns which help carry the load. Nevertheless, people expected that the situation would be much better. That is the one thing which they hoped from nationalisation—that rural supplies would improve. In many rural areas they have slowed down. I have always been very suspicious as to whether the Government's heart was in any drive for the extension of electricity in rural areas. I remember what the present Minister of Defence said on Second Reading: that new boards would be able to undertake rural development on a national systematic plan and that unless that was proceeded with quickly he was satisfied that there was no hope of checking the decline of the rural population. In the Bill introduced


there was no mention of rural development at all, but it is in the Act. The Opposition saw to that on the Committee stage; they took very good care of that. Section I (6, b) reads:
Area Boards shall secure, so far as practicable, the development, extension to rural areas and cheapening of supplies of electricity.
I think they were hedging a little there with the "so far as practicable."
The position today, two years since the Bill became an Act, can be seen from paragraphs 391 to 415 of the Report. Of those five pages which are devoted to the question of rural electrification, four are devoted to the telling of what was done before nationalisation. On the remaining page, two paragraphs set out the task of the authority and their approach to it, and one paragraph is devoted to saying what has been done. It is said that during the period under review, 8,727 farms were added to the 78,963 already supplied with electricity. I would remind the Minister, however, that another 200,000 farms are not yet supplied and that at the present rate of progress it will be 25 years before their needs are met. I hope that something very much quicker than this will be achieved.
The Report goes on, with a rather pious hope, to say:
Since vesting day, the Central Authority and the Area Boards have had under consideration the best and most equitable methods of implementing this duty, and these will be the subject of discussion … with agricultural interests.
That was the position when the Report was drawn up, presumably about 16th December of last year, but somewhat earlier than that, on 6th April, 1949, the Parliamentary Secretary, on an Adjournment Debate, gave us rather more information and said that the matter had been remitted to a special Departmental committee about a year before. When pressed to say whether they had done anything in that year, however, the hon. Gentleman said that he was not able to say when the committee would work out their final policy. I suggested at the time that that committee was only set up to meet the pressure for something to be done. The Parliamentary Secretary was rather indignant when I did so and denied that the Government were "passing the buck." If they were not, in fact, "passing the buck," I hope he will tell us tonight what progress they have

made, because in the two years since the committee was set up we have heard nothing.
Another alarming feature of the prospects for the extension of rural electrification is contained in the Appendix on Capital Investment to the Economic Survey for 1950. I see that in 1939 £40 million was spent on the distribution of electricity. In the coming year the figure, I believe, is £32 million. A "drastic slowing down" is referred to, and I should like to know whether the rural development will share this reduction pari passu with all other development, or whether its prospects are unprejudiced. An ugly rumour is going round that whereas in 1949 £5½ million out of £40 million was spent on rural electricity, in 1950 only £2½ million out of £32 million which is devoted to the distribution of electricity will be applied to rural electrification. I cannot believe that rumour, and it is only fair to give the Minister the chance of denying tonight the unpleasant suggestion of any halving of the amount to be applied to rural supplies.
North Wales has already been referred to, but I have several remarks to make about South Wales. Agricultural interests have representation in every area except London and South Wales.

Mr. Watkins: There are two agricultural representatives in South Wales from my own constituency.

Colonel Clarke: I understand that on South Wales Area Board they have no agricultural representation. That to which the hon. Member refers may be representation on a consultative council, but not an area board. His part of the Principality has been prejudiced by not being represented and it would be very wise for those in that area to press for representation.
A number of hon. lady Members on the opposite benches have spoken about consumer councils. I fully agree with all that has been said. I do not believe that these councils have had as much publicity as they should have had, and I feel that their work would have been more publicised if, as we have always said from this side, meetings had been held "in the open" and with the Press present.

9.5 p.m.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: The hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) has spoken of some of the electricity difficulties in Scotland. I would like to ask the House to turn its attention for a moment to another Celtic country with which I am more familiar and to consider the hydro-electric schemes the British Electricity Authority propose for North Wales.
There is no one in this House who does not recognise the need for providing electricity in the towns and villages of North Wales for agriculture and industry. The only question in dispute is whether the proposals made by the Authority are the most practical, the most economical, or whether more effective proposals could be made which would be far less destructive of the amenities of the area. Last year this House passed a Bill, the National Parks Bill, to preserve forever the natural beauty of certain areas of this country. Amongst the areas so designated was the National Park of North Wales with Snowdon as its central point. That was a year ago and now the British Electricity Authority comes forward with proposals to put 10 power stations in the National Park of North Wales.

Mrs. White: I think the noble Lady should make it quite clear, in fairness to the British Electricity Authority, that these proposals were taken over from the North Wales Power Company and were not thought of after the discussion on national parks.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: But we are not asked to consider the proposals of the North Wales Power Company. The proposals were taken over, accepted, and not altered by the British Electricity Authority and these are the proposals we have to consider now. These proposals are that there should be 10 power stations in the National Park of North Wales, four of them on Snowden itself. These buildings will be some 100 ft. long and 70 ft. high and one cannot hide a power station on a hill. There will be miles of leats, 13 miles of tunnel and, I am told, the leats will be protected by wire netting with here and there gates by which people can cross them. That is the new interpretation of free access to mountains which the British Electricity Authority are putting before us.
These schemes cannot be carried out without roads capable of carrying contractors' plant and heavy generating machinery which will have to be driven up the mountainside. These will hardly improve the amenities or the natural beauty of Snowdon. These plans have been drawn up by engineers, of course, but it also seems that they have been drawn up by people with an unerring and piratical eye for beauty because it seems that they have hardly missed one of the really famous beauty spots of this part of the world.
This is a matter of concern to people who live in North Wales and also to the tourists who come to North Wales, to the great benefit of the people of North Wales in the coastal towns and rural areas and to the farmers, for whom they provide an extremely lucrative market. And we must remember that tourists do not come to see engineering works, however admirably designed to look as if they were not there. They come to enjoy the peace and beauty of the hills. This is a matter which affects, and may affect very seriously, national parks in other parts of the country because, once we have created this precedent that we can waive all the principles which animated the National Parks Act in rural areas in this way in North Wales there is no reason why we should not do it in Cumberland and Scotland.
There are other objections of a different kind, into which I cannot go in the limited time at my disposal. There is the difficulty of water supplies in North Wales. Water is becoming a scarce and precious commodity. We have provided water supplies for a great many English cities, including the city which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) represents. These British Electricity Authority proposals would not only cut across some of the existing water schemes; they take no account of any future needs of the area. Of course, there is the effect upon agriculture and upon the hill farmer also to be considered.
The Minister of Fuel and Power spoke this afternoon of alternative methods of providing electricity. I think it was the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Middleton), who spoke about the possibility of harnessing tides to


generate electricity. As she pointed out, there is already a proposal of that kind to provide electricity for Wales, and I have no doubt also for great parts of England, by means of the Severn Barrage. I do not know whether any scheme of that kind has been considered for North Wales. Perhaps we might have the information.
There is the alternative of coal burning stations. I understand that it is not denied by the British Electricity Authority that one thermal power station can produce as much electricity as could all these hydroelectric schemes put together. There is, as we know, to be a coal-burning station installed at Connah's Quay, which is to provide electricity for a certain part of North Wales and is also to relieve the peak load in a part of England in the area around Chester. Why should we not have the service of that power station to ourselves in Wales? Mr. Cooper, the Mersey-side controller, was asked whether Connah's Quay could supply the needs of North Wales. The answer was, "It could." If that is not practicable there is always the possibility of supplementing that station by another in the vicinity of the North Wales coalfield.
The Government have a duty in this matter. These are the schemes which are produced by the British Electricity Authority, and at some time or other the Government will have to inquire into them and pronounce an opinion upon them. They cannot wash their hands of this responsibility. Apart from the Minister of Fuel and Power, the Minister of Town and Country Planning and the Minister of Agriculture have a direct responsibility in this matter. I do not know, nor do I think any of us know, what stage these consultations have reached, or how far the inter-Departmental conversations have gone, but I hope that the Government will take into account the very great objections which are taken to the schemes of the British Electricity Authority.
I hope that the Government will consider these schemes, not in the sort of emotional coma which the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), seems to think exists in the minds of some people on this matter. That is not necessary. All they have to do is to consider these proposals in the cold light of reason, with a proper sense of values and a real sense of proportion. If they do that they will

reject them as uneconomic, extravagant and as destructive of one of the most glorious parts of this country.

9.14 p.m.

Sir Arnold Gridley: We are now coming to the end of the Debate on the electricity supply industry, and I do not think that any of us can say that it has been a very electric Debate. There has been nothing in the way of sparks flying; there have been no short circuits so far as I know, and everyone has behaved himself so quietly and so well that there has been no need to send for any copper conductors to see any one safely away.
Before I comment on the Report, may I make reference briefly to some of the speeches we have heard today. Most hon. Members who have spoken, no matter from what bench, have had some grievance apparently against the British Electricity Authority or one or other of the area boards. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) complained about the over-weighted staff. The Liberal Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) confessed at the opening of his speech that he was a great believer in the nationalisation of electricity and had voted for the Bill. He went on to criticise heaven knows how many things that were happening under it, and is evidently disappointed at the way it is working out. He said everyone was looking forward to one universal price throughout the country. If the hon. Member has studied the Report from cover to cover, he will have seen how little his hopes in that matter are likely to be realised.
Then we had three speeches from Lady Members opposite. The hon. Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) complained about the way in which consultative committees were working or not working. The hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) recommended that at some future date there should be joint Debates on the nationalised industries—coal, gas and electricity—so that the way in which these consultative committees are operating or not operating in all those industries should be considered together. That is a very good ideal Then we had the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Middleton) also complaining about the


way in which these consultative committees are not working. So, on the whole, I think the Government can claim little support today from those who have spoken from their benches.
In spite of what has been said in some quarters I should like to utter a word of praise to those responsible for compiling this Report. One can see that a good many hands have been employed in drafting various parts of it, which have all eventually been collated, edited and compressed within 131 pages. I venture to doubt whether many hon. Members, either on that side of the House or on this, could put their hands on their hearts and say they have studied it from page I to page 131, have read every word, and have examined all the schedules, graphs and tables that are therein provided for our consumption. It is really a very informative and explanatory Report, giving us a great deal more information upon which we can rely than we have received in certain reports in the past, such as the enormous expenditure on groundnuts and other capital schemes of that kind.
In my view, the Report confirms many of the fears that were expressed and the prophecies that were made from this side of the House during the discussion which took place when the Electricity Act, 1947, was going through its various stages. We then asserted—this has been referred to today, but was denied by one hon. Member who is not in his place now—that the production "Let us Face the Future" issued in 1945, said that public ownership of gas and electricity undertakings would lower charges. It was denied from the benches opposite today that that was said during the 1945 election campaign. Then, the then Minister of Fuel and Power in 1947 was, very rightly, concerned about the position of rural consumers. He said:
If there is any body of consumers who are likely to benefit at all by this Bill, it is bound to be those in the rural areas.
Again, he added:
… in spite of the increased costs of electric equipment and plant, we can assist in cheapening the supply of electricity throughout the field."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 30th June, 1947; Vol. 439, c. 1072–6.]
I do not know what he meant by the words "throughout the field." No doubt he meant throughout the country. In spite of all that the present Minister has

told us today, the former Minister said:
We can assist in cheapening the supply of electricity.
My criticism is not of the Report, because that is frank and informative, but of those who prophesied that we should have cheaper electricity as a result of that Bill. We now see that nothing of the kind is happening, nor is it likely to happen.
I do not blame the area boards or the Authority for raising prices. The capital cost of power station equipment has gone up to £50 and more per kilowatt—four times what it was in my early days in the industry, and more than twice what it was before the war, as the Minister reminded us. Capital expenditure on these undertakings only produces a 20 per cent. revenue. One has to spend £1 million capital to earn £200,000 of revenue or turnover. No other business I know of can compare with that high ratio of capital to income. When one compares what an enormous figure the capital represents in cost, it is extremely difficult to cut down prices when one has to face such high figures. On top of that, as we have been told more than once, the cost of coal is 183 per cent. higher than it was before the war.
In those circumstances, how can we blame any authority—private enterprise, public corporation or nationalised industry—if it has to raise prices? I agree that we cannot, but I would point out that those in productive industry are constantly being exhorted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade to reduce costs and to improve quality. The nationalised industries do not decrease their costs.
What really is wrong with the national set-up under the Act is that there are far too many people at the top. There are widespread complaints. It is no use shutting our eyes to them. We hear from all over the country that chairmen of the area boards, four of whom serve on the Authority, spend more than half their time in London engaged in conferences on one subject or another. The result is that they are not available in their areas when decisions have to be taken. Committee after committee has been set up and meetings are held, and the result of all this is that the tempo of development throughout the country has been definitely slowed down. If any hon. Member doubts the truth of what I have said, I beg him to


look at paragraphs 74 and 75 of the Report. He will then appreciate the force of what I have said.
What do these consultations really involve? This is what the Report says in paragraph 169:
The consultations referred to above, and the publicity which has to be given to the Authority's major proposals, inevitably take a considerable time; and this period may be protracted, particularly when conflicting interests necessitate the holding of a public inquiry by the Minister. Moreover, a substantial amount of highly specialised work is involved in preparing the data required by the various authorities and interests who have to be consulted.
When one Government Department, or a nationalised board under a Government Department, wants to get on with its job, it very soon finds that it has to consult other Government Departments, which are all tangled up together, and no progress can be made until the requirements of five or six other Departments have been satisfied.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that these consultations should not take place?

Sir A. Gridley: I am suggesting that far too many take place, and that the great fault is that there is too great a tendency at the headquarters of the British Electricity Authority to refuse authority to men who are quite capable of running the area boards, but who have to refer so many matters to London before they can get on with the job. That applies also in the area boards themselves, be cause they are so split up into sub-areas and sub-districts that a great many men, most of them quite capable of carrying responsibility, now find themselves treated not as persons but as mere units in the machine, with the result that no one takes responsibility, and when a matter has to be settled it is referred from one side to another until it eventually goes to the top. That is the Socialist method; no individual will take responsibility. It is all settled by Committees—

Mr. Noel-Baker: This is a question of the siting of stations, a matter of immense importance to the areas, and on which consultations must take place. Nobody makes more fuss about consultations than hon. Members opposite.

Sir A. Gridley: The Minister shuts his eyes to it, but it is so widely known that

it is talked about all over the country and in every area, and it really is the fault of the system. It is one of the inevitable consequences when we socialise an industry and make it responsible to a Minister.
I must say a word or two about the seriousness of the cut which the Government have imposed on the area boards and the consequences that will follow, having regard to the fact that we are so very short of power station capacity at the present time. I do not know whether the House is aware of it or not, but it is a fact that, in various parts of the country, our mains today are very heavily overloaded at certain times of the day. There are transformer stations running so hot that the men engaged in their operation are almost hourly afraid of an explosion, and, as a matter of fact, I believe that certain explosions have taken place in one or two sub-stations. We are told in the Report that nearly 30 per cent. of the plant operated in power stations today is 25 years old, and the risk of breakdown will remain in all these cases an extremely serious one.
The Report of Sir Henry Self has been referred to, and in the chapter which he wrote dealing with this particular point, this shortage of power station capacity, and the cut which the Government have made are referred to in a chapter which he very appropriately calls "Cabin'd, Cribb'd, Confin'd"; he says:
If the figures in the survey are to be taken as a guide to the future, the outlook is not at all promising. If the generating plant programme were itself to be subject to further applications of the axe, an indefinite continuance—if not an actual extension—of load-shedding may be foreshadowed.
I referred to this next point in a speech I made a week or two ago. I shall repeat it now, because I have a copy of what was said. He said:
It is, I think, relevant here to call attention to the serious consequences which could flow from a series of breakdowns in electricity supply which might result from these capital 'cuts.' With national production running at the rate of about £6,000 million per annum, say £120 million per week, it is not difficult to appreciate that a fairly widespread stoppage for only one day might more than offset the attempted reductions in capital expenditure which these estimates imply.
I leave Sir Henry Self's words to speak for themselves. No doubt that man, with his massive brain, will command by words of his far more attention than I could


possibly command with mine. I do not wonder that he headed the chapter in which he included those sentences with an indication that the British Electricity Authority is "cabin'd, cribb'd, confin'd."
I say to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary: Is it not their duty to make plain to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and also to the Prime Minister—the grave danger that the country is being asked to face by not pressing for a review of the limitations of capital expenditure on a matter which is so vital to the national interest, especially with the state of the world as it is today?
My time is coming to an end, and I must omit certain things with which I wish to deal; and I will come now to one or two questions of which I have given the Parliamentary Secretary notice, and with which I must bring my contribution to an end. The first is: What was the planned annual outlay on power stations, transformer stations and mains, and by what percentage has that been cut by the Government? There is a footnote on page 80 of the Report which was added only at the last minute, saying:
The recently-announced reductions imposed by the Government in the investment programmes of the fuel and power industries, a substantial share of which falls upon electricity development, has necessitated the severest pruning of construction programmes, including those of rural electrification.
That is why I put that first question to the Parliamentary Secretary. By what percentage has the cut been made?
Secondly, are the present restrictions on the use of electricity referred to on pages 256 and 257 of the Report to be reviewed this summer as is indicated? We have heard nothing about this in the House so far. Is this review in hand? Has it been commenced? If so, when are we likely to hear the result of it?
Then, are the consultative committees established in every area, with the officers and staffs with which they were to be provided under the Act? And what do they annually cost? If we cannot get that information now, I am going to ask that in future accounts published by the Authority a separate item should be shown, showing exactly what the cost of these consultative committees in the various areas is amounting to each year. We can then see whether they are really

of very much value for the money spent upon them, or not.
Then, do the area boards supply current in bulk to one another, and, if so, on what terms? The Report is quite silent about a matter of that kind, and the figures are of importance to the consumers inside those areas.
What is the new coal structure? Apparently, as the Report admits, the British Electricity Authority and the area boards have no freedom of choice; they cannot negotiate for their coal supplies; they must take what they are told is available for their use. It is not like the old days, when we could go and negotiate with three or four merchants or alternative colliery companies and buy our own coal for power stations. Now the power stations must take what coal may be provided for them. They have no voice either as to grade or as to price, and we see that there is now a new coal structure to be discussed. We should very much like to know what that coal structure is.
Finally, I would say this. Until there is less control from the British Electricity Authority at the centre, until greater responsibility is placed on the area boards, unless there is a considerable reduction in the number of committees sitting in London and in the mass of paper work, and unless the present over-straining for stadardisation of plant and equipment is sensibly restrained, the position of consumers of electricity, both domestic and industrial, will be worsened and not bettered.
A cheap and abundant supply of electricity—a phrase which was bandied about all over the place not so very long ago—is a vital national and industrial necessity. Today we have neither, and the claimed benefits of nationalisation are not being achieved as promised in the Socialist manifesto. I end with the words that I ventured to use three years ago on the Third Reading of the Electricity Act. I do not wish to see this great industry, which has been of such immense value to Britain, failing to repeat the great services it has rendered in the past. I wish it well, and I hope that in the days that remain to me I shall not see it fail.

9.38 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): The hon. Member for Stockport,


South (Sir A. Gridley) has had a very long and distinguished career in the electricity industry. His words, therefore, carry great weight with us in the House, and I am perfectly certain that those who have an interest in the industry and those who are running the industry will read what he has had to say with great interest. He asked me a number of questions, and I hope to be able to give him a reply to them. He first asked: What is the percentage of cut imposed on the programme for the electricity industry? The rate of expenditure proposed for 1950 was £113 million, which was cut to £102 million—about a 10 per cent. cut. None of that cut is falling upon the generating side, so that there is a 20 per cent. cut on the remainder—the distribution and other side of the industry.
What amazed me was the way in which the hon. Gentleman followed one or two or his colleagues in relation to the cuts in capital investment. Of course, this is not the time or the place to deal with the whole question of the capital investment programme, but it did come strangely from him, or any of his colleagues, even to talk about not cutting this programme, when, only a few months ago, we had from the Leader of the Opposition the suggestion that we should cut the capital investment programme by something like £500 million. No one was concerned about reducing expenditure on defence, although we cannot at this stage go into a long debate about that. When capital investment has to be cut hon. Gentlemen opposite scream in great rage at the Government because they have not cut the capital investment programme sufficiently. When, however, the programme is cut by 10 per cent. they come along to the House and expect to be taken seriously when they say that this cut should never have been made.

Sir A. Gridley: £500 million of Government expenditure as a whole, not of capital investment.

Mr. Robens: My recollection is that it was on the capital investment programme. The hon. Gentleman referred to the restrictions which are printed in the letter on pages 256–7 of the Report and asked whether effect had been given to the statement which says
The whole position will be reviewed again in the summer.

That referred to the summer of 1948, and the position was reviewed. The fact is that generating plant continues to be so deficient that a list of priorities similar to that has still to be maintained.

Colonel Clarke: I want to know whether the expenditure on rural electrification is to be cut pro rata to the rest, or twice as much.

Mr. Robens: It must rest with the area boards themselves to determine in what way they can get the most for the money available.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport, South, asked about consultative committees and their cost. We have not had a full year of the consultative committees because they were set up some time after the boards were formed. They will not be a great expense. The costs will presumably be the hire of rooms, travelling expenses for members of the committees and the secretaries' salaries. The travelling expenses for the committees are those laid down by the Treasury for members of Departmental committees, which are less than those paid by local authorities to members of local authorities. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the costs are not unreasonably high for the consumers' councils.
He also asked whether the area boards sell current in bulk to one another. The answer is, "Yes." The Report clearly indicates the nature of these transactions, and if he will look at the statement A5 on page 175 of the Report he will see the details of the transactions between the area boards, showing the number of units and the prices that have been paid.
In regard to the coal price structure, hon. Members in all parts of the House are quite familiar, by reason of the previous Debates which we have had on subjects allied to this, with the fact that there was necessity to have an adjustment of coal prices brought about by the flat rate increase which took place during the war, which made inferior coal higher in price than it ought to have been and the better coal lower in price than it ought to have been. That first adjustment has been made, but it is only an interim adjustment, and some reference is made to that in the Report. The final structure is being worked out, but is not yet complete.
I think that the questions which the hon. Gentleman asked me and of which he was kind enough to give me notice I have been able to deal with. If I am not able to deal with all the other questions that have been asked, it is only because time is so short. I was rather surprised that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) had nothing very good to say about the British Electricity Authority. Apparently he was well briefed for the engineering side as against the administrative side. I do not think that it is as quarrelsome as all that inside the industry, although there may be differences between technicians and administrators. I do not understand how he can have the argument both ways.
He claimed that credit was being taken by His Majesty's Government for the new power stations going up, and he quoted a Press report—the Press hand-out from the British Electricity Authority when the Kingston power station was being built, saying that it was one of the first of 25. He then delivered a crushing blow by saying it was not their power station at all and that it was planned before nationalisation, yet in the next breath, he complained that the Government allowed this power station to be built and described it as a temple of power and ornamentation gone mad.
The fact is that they were designed in the pre-nationalisation period. I quite agree with the hon. Member in what he said. I will tell him something more, that new and simpler designs, for which the British Electricity Authority is responsible, are being worked out with possibly cheaper methods of construction. They are being examined and tried. Therefore, what the hon. Member complains about is something for which the Authority cannot be held responsible; what he wants to see achieved is being done.
The hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) wanted to know why the value of the assets is not shown in the balance sheet in the way that he himself wanted. He asks what instruction the Minister has given in this regard. This is not a matter on which the Minister gives directions, nor, in fact, has he done so. The Authority decided to adopt the net book value based on the book value of the former undertakings, and it will be seen that, according to

paragraphs 499 to 502 of the Report, that is the only practical basis on which they say they can work.
The right hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) seemed to indicate throughout his speech that all that is being done in the industry is due entirely to what the Conservative Government did in the field of legislation, and also to what private enterprise has done. He seemed to overlook completely the fact that two-thirds of the industry was in the hands of municipal undertakings.
One of my hon. Friends has referred to this industry as being a socialised industry in a local sense. I do not think it is a great debating point to suggest that it is always the best of private enterprise we inherit and that we have spoilt what private enterprise has done. Many of the municipal enterprises were extremely progressive, and many of the private companies were progressive, but it is equally true that some municipal enterprises and some private companies were not progressive. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the former Minister, who is now Minister of Defence. What did he say? He said:
This Bill makes an indispensable service a national concern, available, as soon as physical difficulties are overcome, for industrial and domestic use at a price strictly related to costs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1947; Vol. 432, c. 1421.]
Later, a good deal of play was made in Committee by Members opposite of the fact that Government spokesmen had not, in fact, promised cheap electricity. What we have said is that electricity under integration in this public way, will be cheaper, and "cheaper" is a relative term. I do not think that anyone will deny that.

Captain Crookshank: Relative to what?

Mr. Robens: Relative to the prices operating at the time when one is considering an article which is being sold. It is relatively cheaper, although the price might be more. [Laughter.] I can understand Members opposite laughing. Whenever things are explained to them in a simple way, they just do not get down to it. Prices have risen, and they would have risen a good deal more if it had not been for nationalisation. Members have failed to notice that, at the take-over, 150 undertakings were making losses totalling


£7 million a year. Would these undertakings not have put up their prices? Of course they would; otherwise, they would have gone out of business. The price increase of electricity is 12.6 per cent. on 1938–39 figures, but only 4 per cent. on 1947–48 figures. The nationalised industry cannot be blamed, therefore, for the whole of the increase since the war. I would go further and say that, quite apart from these undertakings losing that amount of money, prices would have been higher if there had not been substantial economies effected by reason of nationalisation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) gave an instance out of the North West Board's Report of a saving of something like £270,000, because the industry was integrated, and if hon. Gentlemen would care to look through the Authority's Report they will find another interesting one—the £1,400,000 that was saved as a result of integration in transmission and distribution equipment. In the Merseyside and North Wales Report a saving is shown there—these are isolated instances of savings—of £143,000. All these figures would have been added to the price of electricity if the industry had not been nationalised.
The right hon. Member for King's Norton referred to the inferior quality of coal. He talked about the difficulty and cost of getting rid of the ashes. It is perfectly true *hat the power stations are getting an inferior coal and that inferior coals are cheaper than the better coals. I know that the British Electricity Authority would prefer to have better coals unless the price of the inferior coal comes down, as probably will be the case when the structure is finalised. Is it not a sensible thing that in this country we should find a useful outlet for inferior coals? We shall always mine inferior coal, because that is inevitable in mining operations.
Therefore, if a useful outlet can be found for inferior coal, and if the power stations, by reason of the development of a better boiler technique, can use inferior coal with greater efficiency, it is a sound and sensible thing, which we should encourage, in order that inferior coal which is inevitably mined should be used for the country's benefit.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Is it not the case that the power stations have always been

inclined to use the inferior and cheaper coals and we quite agree with that, but is it not also the fact that now they are getting very bad inferior types of inferior coal?

Mr. Robens: If the coal is mined—and thank goodness His Majesty's Government cannot be blamed for what is inherent in a seam of coal—is it not a good thing that there should be an outlet for that type of fuel?
What we have really got to do is to get this inferior coal burned, and the suggestion that there should be development of the boiler technique in order to burn the inferior coal and get good value from it is something which should be encouraged. If we take the units of electricity generated in each ton of coal used in the power station some interesting figures are to be seen. In January, 1947, there were 1,550 units for every ton of coal used; in January, 1948, it was 1,518. Vesting date was 1st April, 1948, and in 1949 units of electricity generated for each ton of coal rose to 1,602, and in January, 1950, to 1,631. There is a development for the better use of inferior coal, and if we look at the thermal efficiency of the station, we find that pre-war it was 20.7, the year before nationalisation it was 20.86, and in the first year of nationalisation it had risen to 21.15. I understand that that improvement is continuing so that there is steady improvement in both the thermal efficiency and the units being obtained per ton of coal, which I think point to rather satisfactory progress.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that the B.B.C. had been badly treated. My hon. Friends the Member for Blackburn, East, and the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Middleton) raised the question of the consumer councils. I wonder why the B.B.C. were being so badly treated that they did not take advantage of the consumer councils and let the consumer councils do the job. I promise the right hon. Gentleman that we shall certainly find out all about this B.B.C. complaint, the charges in which he was not prepared to substantiate. I will let him know more about the matter.
The consumers councils have not a very easy job but a difficult job. They have to make themselves known to the public. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton that it is important that that


should be done. We have taken the line that where there is a consumer's complaint we might at least give the local management a chance of putting it right. I do not regard consumer councils as recipients for every single complaint that arises. At least give the local management a chance, and if there is no satisfaction then use the consumer council. There is much that one could say about consumer councils, but I will have to leave it in order to reply to some of the other points.
The hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) asked about loans to employees for the purchase of houses or official cars. The Authority and the boards are merely continuing the practice of the former undertakers in advancing loans to employees to assist them to buy houses or official cars. No such loans were made to members of the Authority or of the boards but only to their employees. He asked whether the profit was a true profit. The answer is that the surplus of more than £4 million was made after deducting all the proper revenue charges. The amount set aside for depreciation by the Authority, £31 million, was greater than that provided by the former undertakings. Even so, I accept what he said; the normal depreciation provision will not in itself be enough to replace the assets at present-day prices. The Authority recognises this fact in paragraph 549, emphasising the necessity for building up a reserve for that purpose.
Some discussion took place on the standardisation of charges. It is not intended at this stage that there should be a standard charge throughout the length and breadth of the country. It is desired, and every effort is to be made, that within the areas we shall get down to some standard of charges, probably one, two or three tariffs, according to the particular business and the circumstances. It is intended that the various tariffs that were in existence at the time the British Electricity Authority took over shall be put on one side and that we shall get down to two or three tariffs for the areas. I would not go so far as to say that it will be possible, at this stage at any rate, to say that from Land's End to John o' Groats we can have a universal charge for electricity.
I would like to say something about the North Wales hydro scheme which

the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) raised. When the scheme is prepared it will have to be submitted to the Minister and he will have to give it his approval. In any case a Bill will have to come before the House, so that there will be plenty of opportunity to deal with all these matters that she raised. I obviously cannot reply to them at this stage, but I assure her that there is a great deal of sympathy with maintaining the good and beautiful conditions that abound in Snowdonia.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That this House takes note of the First Annual Reports and Statements of Accounts of the British Electricity Authority and of the Area Electricity Boards; of the Report of the Minister of Fuel and Power for the period 1947–49; and of the Annual Report of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board for 1949.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

10.0 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move,
That the Representation of the People Regulations, 1950, dated 5th July, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.
This Motion deals with the revised Regulations under the Representation of the People Act. I should like to take the opportunity, in submitting these Regulations to the House, to thank hon. Members on both sides who have submitted to me suggestions for embodiment in the revised Regulations. Because I understand that it is the only thing which would be in order, I propose to deal with the alterations which the new regulations make in the Regulations which were previously in force.
The Representation of the People Act, under which the former Regulations were made, has been consolidated in the Act of 1949, and the Ireland Act, 1949, has also necessitated some verbal amendments. We had one other Measure, which hon. Members who were in the last House will recall, the Electoral Registers Act, 1949, which we introduced as an economy Measure. An amendment to that was moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) relating to the bringing on to the


register of young people who in the first six months of the period of the annual register attained the qualifying age. Regulation 5 (3) of the revised Regulations provides that the names of such persons shall be marked with the letter "Y" so that they will be entitled to vote at any election that occurs in the second half of the year to which the register relates.
The 1949 Regulations contained a number of transitional provisions which have been deleted because they are no longer applicable. Apart from these amendments necessitated by legislation, some amendments of substance have been made in the light of experience since the 1949 Regulations were made in February of last year. Regulations 11 and 12 set out the procedure for dealing with claims to be included in the register of electors. Such a claim may be made either by an elector or by some other person on his behalf. The 1949 Regulations provided that certain notices required to be given by the registration officer should be sent to the claimant. In some cases the claimant may be a soldier serving abroad, and the Regulations have been amended to provide that notices shall be sent to the person making the claim, who may not necessarily be the claimant.
Regulation 23 has been amended to give the Secretary of State a power which may be necessary in cases where he gives a direction under Section 11 (4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1949. Under that Section an interested local authority or 30 electors may make representations to the Secretary of State that the responsible local authority has not exercised its power under the Section with regard to the polling districts in its area so as to meet the reasonable requirements of the electors.
Prior to the General Election I received a number of representations from different constituencies, local authorities and groups of electors with regard to this matter. Some I was able to grant, but it seemed to me in some instances that the case was not made out. I anticipate that these applications will continue to come in. When I receive them, if I accept the representations that are made, I may thereupon direct the local authority to alter the polling district arrangements. The revised arrangements may not be capable of being put into effect imme-

diately, however, without a corresponding adaptation of the current register of electors. But in the old regulations I had no power to direct that the register should be so adapted, and sometimes a rather "sticky" clerk of a local authority would say, "Even if you make the alterations I shall not be able to adapt the register in time for the election." The amended regulations enable me to direct that the register shall be adapted so that the alteration can be brought into force at once.
Regulations 25, 30 and 32 deal with the procedure in connection with applications to vote by post or by proxy. The 1949 regulations provided that an application to be treated as an absent voter or to appoint a proxy might be disregarded for the purposes of a particular election if received after a specified day. In the case of applications for an indefinite period on the ground, for example, of physical disability, nature of occupation or change of address, this day was the day on which the writ for the election was received. In the case of applications for the purpose of a particular election, for example, by Service voters or election officials, it was two days before the last day for nominations, but in either case the previous regulations gave the registration officer discretion to deal with applications received after that day.
At the recent General Election, therefore, the actual last day for receipt of applications varied from constituency to constituency at the discretion of the registration officer, and this caused confusion and discontent. I had representations made to me that in some constituencies one party knew that applications could still be received, but other parties did not, and there was very considerable dissatisfaction in a great many constituencies with regard to the matter. It seems preferable that the closing day should be the same for all types of applications and should not be subject to variation; and also that it should be later than some of the dates hitherto allowed.
The new regulations provide that applications received by the registration officer after the last day for the delivery of nomination papers, which in the view of the Advisory Electoral Conference is the latest date which can safely be appointed, shall be disregarded for the purposes of the election. The registration officer retains


the discretion to allow late applications by election officers and police constables, and late applications to be no longer treated as an absent voter or for the cancellation of proxy appointments. I think the House will agree that that is a reasonable regulation to make.
Of course, the actual election officials who may be appointed to a polling place other than their own, or police constables appointed for duty during the day of polling at some polling station other than the one at which they may be on the register, very often do not know they are to be assigned for duty until a very short time indeed before the date of the poll. The returning officer is in reasonably close touch with such persons. For others the last day will be the day of nomination and that will give the registration officer and the returning officer ample opportunity to see that all the persons who have claimed within the appointed time have an opportunity to record their vote.
Regulations 26, 33 and 41 (2) have been amended to simplify the preparation of the absent voters' list and the postal proxies' list. The 1949 regulations provided that the names in those lists should be numbered consecutively and that these numbers should be marked on the counterfoils of the ballot papers issued. The new regulations provide the elector's number in the register, which in any event must be included in the lists, shall be used instead. This enables consecutive numbering of the lists to be dispensed with, and in the hurry of the last two or three days that, of course, represents a considerable saving in the office of the registration officer.
Regulation 28 has been revised to provide that where an application for the appointment of a proxy is received after an election has begun and on or before the last day for nominations, no inquiry need be sent to the person nominated as second choice for proxy, failing the first choice, until after the date of the poll. This is a consequential amendment to the amendment to regulation 30 already referred to, which alters the last date for the receipt of applications for the appointment of a proxy from the opening day of the election to the last day for the receipt of nomination papers.
Where as a consequence it is necesary to deal with applications received after

the election has begun, there will not be time to make the necessary inquiry of the second nomination for proxy before the appointment has to be made, and the amendment relieves the registration officer of having to make an inquiry during an election which could not result in an appointment effective for that election. Usually, of course, the first choice is willing to act and the appointment can be made effective for the election.
Regulation 48 deals with the procedure for the opening of the postal voters' ballot boxes. At the last election there were numerous complaints as to the delay that occurred on the day of the count, and I have ascertained that in a fair number of cases that was due to the slow procedure of dealing with the postal voters' ballot boxes. One thing that will help in future is that the Treasury have made a further grant for the employment of additional counting assistants. This is not a matter that really comes into these regulations but it will help considerably in the count and will, I hope, leave the returning officer with one or two people at least who will be able to deal with the postal voters' boxes during the actual process of the poll.
Postal votes may be received at any time up to the close of the poll and, therefore, at least one box must remain unopened until then. The new regulation, however, removes any doubt as to whether other boxes may be opened before the close of the poll. The regulation is only concerned with the opening of the envelopes and checking that the contents are in order. The ballot papers are not counted at this stage but are placed in a ballot box to be mixed with and counted with the ordinary ballot papers at the count.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Will the second envelope be opened or will it be put in the ballot box?

Mr. Ede: Both envelopes will be opened. The ballot paper will be checked and it will be put into a ballot box in preparation for being mixed with the ordinary ballot papers when they have all been checked and the time for counting comes.
I am quite sure the House will accept the view that this should result in a considerable saving of time in those cases particularly where the counting of votes


is done on the evening of polling day, although I think that some of the longer counts were those that took place on the day after polling day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Apparently there have been some victims. Even in those cases, it should enable this long and rather tedious business to be dealt with in sufficient time for these papers to be ready to be counted when the others are ready.
Regulation 62 has been amended by increasing the period allowed for giving notice of an appeal against a registration officer's decision from five days to 14. A recent case suggested that the time previously allowed was unsatisfactory. Several of the forms prescribed in the First Schedule have been amended in the light of experience. During the Adjournment Debate on Election arrangements on 31st March there was some criticism of the wording of Form C which is the prescribed form of announcement to be issued by electoral registration officers when electoral lists are published. The form has been much shortened and simplified. Form H, the form of the certificate of identity to be used by postal voters, has also been simplified.
Form Q, which is used for applications to be treated as an absent voter on the grounds of occupation or physical disability, has been amended to secure that a person who is registered as a blind person by a local authority need not obtain a medical certificate as to his blindness for the purpose of his application. This form was previously also the form to be used by persons applying on the ground that they would be unable to go to the poll from their qualifying address without making a journey by air or sea. To secure greater clarity a separate form has been supplied for applications on those grounds. These are alterations that these new Regulations have made in the Regulations that were in force at the General Election.
I should like to express my thanks, not merely to those who sent me suggestions with regard to these matters, but also to the advisory committee which helps me on these matters whose care and attention have been beyond all praise. On it are represented the national agents of the three main political parties, the registration officers and those who are concerned in one way or another with the conduct of an election. Their advice has been wise.

I regret that it has not been possible to make all the alterations I would have liked, but I believe that these Regulations represent a substantial advance on those which were in force at the General Election of this year.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. R. V. Grimston: The Home Secretary has given us a full explanation of the amendments which these Regulations contain as compared with those in force at the General Election. I understand that they have come, in the main, from the deliberations which took place at the electoral conference when the experience of the General Election was discussed; and, as far as they go, it appears to us, as the Home Secretary has said, that they are an improvement on what was in force at the time of the General Election.
There are, however, one or two comments I would like to make on them, first, in regard to the alterations to Regulations 25, 30 and 32 which substitute a fixed day for the acceptance of applications for proxy and postal voting for the discretion which was originally held by the returning officer. I understand, and the Home Secretary referred to it, that in some constituencies the last day, as arrived at by the discretion of the returning officer, was some days after nomination day.
I think the longer the period can be extended the better because there must be a number of people who, for one reason or another, are faced by the fact that they cannot get to the poll. I am wondering whether nomination day is administratively possible and whether "D" day, so to speak, could not be made later. Otherwise I agree with the Home Secretary that it is better to have a universal practice rather than a practice which differs from constituency to constituency. Perhaps the Home Secretary would look at that point.
I should like to raise a point with regard to the issue of postal ballot papers. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that by Regulation 40 there can now be more than one issue of these postal ballot papers. In the case of the first issue the returning officer is bound to give two days notice in writing at least of his intention to issue postal ballot papers. That gives the candidate or his agent time to make arrangements to be present. In the case of a subsequent postal issue the returning officer has only to notify each candidate


"as soon as practicable." I wonder how that may work out in practice, because "practicable" may mean a very short period and it may well be that the candidate or his agent will be faced with a notice from a returning officer that the issue is to be made at a time at which it is impossible to arrange proper representation. That is a point which should be looked at to see if a mandatory period should not be laid down for second or subsequent issues of postal ballot papers.
I have no comment to make about the opening of ballot boxes. Anything that helps towards speediness of the count is probably agreeable to everyone, provided that what is done is watertight, which, from the explanation of the Home Secretary, I think is the case. What we are more interested in is what the Home Secretary has not introduced into these Regulations.

Mr. Speaker: We cannot discuss that.

Mr. Grimston: I do not know whether one is allowed to ask a question about them so that the Home Secretary might be able to give briefly the reason why he has not been able to introduce them.

Mr. Speaker: I think not. Debate is limited to the Regulations and what is in the Regulations. We cannot go outside them, not even to ask what is left out.

Mr. Grimston: In view of your Ruling, Sir, I cannot pursue that point. We shall have to seek other opportunities of raising these matters. I understand that in the case of some the Home Secretary would have been ready to give his reasons for their omission.
We believe that these amended Regulations are, on the whole, an improvement. I hope that the Home Secretary may be able to deal with the two points which I have raised, and that he will also be prepared to give consideration to bringing forward more amendments to embody some of the things which we should like to see done.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: At the Election a great many people qualified to vote were bitterly disappointed to find that they were not on the Register. As the Home Secretary has said, a con-

ference took place at the Home Office, attended by representatives of the parties, to see whether the arrangements for registration could be improved. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. R. V. Grimston) in finding the changes in the Regulations, which are the result of that conference, rather trifling. The Home Secretary made the most of them in his speech, but that most is not much. The mountains in labour have produced a rather small mouse. As you have reminded us, Mr. Speaker, it is not in order to discuss what is not in these Regulations, but I may perhaps be permitted to record regret that some of the recommendations of that Home Office conference have not been embodied in them.
In the Debate on 31st March a suggestion was made by myself, and endorsed by other hon. Members, that this conference should issue a report stating what were its conclusions, and what were its reasons for making certain recommendations and not others. It would have been convenient to have such a comprehensive statement but, because there has not been one, some of my hon. Friends and myself have put down a large number of questions to the Home Secretary for Thursday on the omissions from these regulations. I do not think that is a convenient course, but it is the only one open to us.
I may perhaps draw attention to a misinterpretation of these Regulations during the election by the Minister of Health. In Twickenham, I think it was actually on polling day, a man stopped me in the street and complained that his wife, who was at that moment having a baby in hospital, had not been allowed to exercise the postal vote. On inquiry I found that the Minister of Health had issued instructions that the medical certificate to enable a hospital patient to apply for a postal vote could not be issued until she was actually in hospital, although for some weeks before going into hospital she had been an outpatient. When she applied, it was too late. That was a serious case of disenfranchisement by ministerial action, and I am glad to say that it was not the action of the Home Secretary.
There is one point in these Regulations to which I draw the attention of the House. On page 42 will be found Form R—"Application to be treated as an


absent voter owing to change of residence." It was ruled, I do not know by whom, that if the change of residence consisted of forcible removal to one of His Majesty's prisons, the prisoner could apply to vote by post.
Now look, if you will, Mr. Speaker, at Note 3 which says:
This application cannot be allowed if the address at which you now reside is in the same area as the address for which you are registered, i.e., within the borough. …
That means that if the prison is in the same area as the address at which the prisoner lived before he was taken to gaol, he cannot vote by post. I understand that actually happened in the constituency of the hon. Member who is now the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. de Freitas), and his constituent was unjustly disenfranchised for that reason. Surely this is conferring an unfair advantage on prisoners who are taken to prison in some different area? What will the Home Secretary do to redress this burning injustice to people who go to gaol in their own borough? Will he arrange that such prisoners—and there must be quite a few of them—shall be taken from prison in charge of a warder to the polling station so that they can exercise the franchise to which they are said to be entitled but of which they are deprived for this unreasonable cause? After all, the man who goes to gaol has no choice as to whether he goes to gaol in his own borough or in some other. But perhaps it would be simpler to abolish the ridiculous ruling that a prisoner can vote by post.

10.29 p.m.

Captain Duncan: I do not disagree with the Regulations, but I have one small point to make which I have not made hitherto for the obvious reason which will follow. It has been brought to my notice in Scotland—I raise it with the Home Secretary because it is of general application—that many electors do not see if their names are on the register because it is divided up into classes A, B and C and they get muddled. They look at register A find they are not on it, and then the electoral registration officer has a lot of trouble to find out whether they are on one of the other lists.
When the new electoral register comes out next year, will it be clearly publicised, in print rather than by broadcast, that

voters should look not only at the "A" part of the register, but at the other parts, too. I say that this ought not to be broadcast. If the right hon. Gentleman broadcasts, people may not listen to him. But if it is published in official announcements in large type, the voters are sure to notice it, and will not worry the election registration officer as in the past.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: The problem of the absent voter affects the large rural areas, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would ensure that any publicity he considers giving in the Press to these alterations is given not only in the national papers but also in the weekly newspapers.

10.31 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: You may remember, Mr. Speaker, that under your chairmanship I took an active part in the 1944 Conference, and on that occasion I think more than anyone else I urged the necessity of extending the principle of the absent vote. I did not get all the support I desired on that principle. I think that on democratic grounds we should make it as easy as possible for people to exercise the franchise.
I should like to refer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling), who has drawn attention to page 42 of this document. It says:
Temporary absence, e.g., on holiday"—
that is only by way of example—
does not constitute a change of residence.
I do not know how long you have to be under the Home Secretary's jurisdiction to be regarded as "temporary." I suppose if you get a fortnight for being drunk and disorderly, that would be regarded as temporary.

Mr. Ede: I do not suggest that Mr. Speaker should get any sentence at all.

Sir H. Williams: I must apologise. We get into the bad habit of saying "you" when we mean "somebody." You have to carry many burdens, Mr. Speaker.
What I have quoted is one of the definite statements contained in this document. I think it is monstrous that people who go away for a holiday should be deprived of their vote. They may have made their holiday arrangements a


long time before, especially as we are now asking for staggered holidays. Why an absence on holiday should be regarded as a disqualification from voting by post I cannot see. I have always been a strong advocate of voting by post. Only once in my life have I voted personally in an election. I discovered that the qualification of being a Parliamentary candidate was accepted by most registration officers, and it is now recognised by Statute, as qualifying one as an absent voter. Only in the election of 1945 did I vote in person. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Was that why the hon. Gentleman lost?"] I did not vote for myself but for somebody else.
Hon. Members opposite talk about being democratic. We should make it easier and not more difficult to vote. I have put forward proposals, which were not accepted, that we should have our polling on Sundays, as they do in a great many countries, from two to six o'clock, with no motor cars and no committee rooms, and everything done in decency. I got no support from anyone, but I still think there is a lot to be said for these proposals. Why should temporary absence on holiday not constitute a change of residence? I think this is a fundamental defect in this document. I hope that the Home Secretary will take note of the observations I have made. I am only repeating in this House things which I said in your presence, Mr. Speaker, in the Committee Room upstairs six years ago.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Member for West-bury (Mr. R. V. Grimston) referred to the question of making nomination day the last day for receiving applications for postal voting. That was very carefully considered by the agents and other people, and they came to the conclusion that when one has made allowance for the way in which these votes have to be packed and sent out, it would be impossible to guarantee that the vote would reach the voter in time to be returned if any later date were fixed. I am bound to say that I share that view, and I think that the expert advice which we received on that occasion was sound.
The hon. Member asked a question, also, with regard to Regulation 40. I am bound to say that that is in the same

form as it has always been. There is no alteration in that, and therefore I think I should be out of order if I attempted to explain it. But I think it is reasonable that if a second issue of ballot papers has to be made, for any reason, if they cannot all be got out on the first day it would be rather foolish for the returning officer to hold up for two days before he issued the remainder. I think the reasonable thing would be for him to say, "As it is closing time tonight, we shall start again at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning." I think that ought to be sufficient
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) raised the question of the accident which occurred in his constituency, whereby a woman was prevented from getting a postal vote owing to what, he said, was a ruling of the Minister of Health. It was not so. It was a ruling of the hospital board. Instructions have been issued by my right hon. Friend to hospital boards which should ensure that such a mistake will not be made in any future election.

Mr. Keeling: The mere fact that fresh instructions had to be issued shows that the Minister's original instruction was, to say the least, very obscure.

Mr. Ede: I do not think the hon. Member has any evidence with regard to that.

Mr. Keeling: Yes, I have.

Mr. Ede: I think the effective thing is that steps have been taken to remedy whatever the cause was which led to the mistake, which I am quite sure everyone regrets.

Mr. Messer: No doctor will issue a certificate without first seeing the patient.

Mr. Ede: I had a case in my constituency, and the doctor who was attending the lady gave the necessary certificate. There are generally more ways than one of dealing with these questions. The hon. Member alluded to the question of prisoners receiving votes which, I think, is in some measure in contrast with the case of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), namely, the person who is on holiday. I am not at all sure that there is much justification for including prisoners at all.
I am not at all sure that one of the penalties of imprisonment ought not to be the temporary withdrawal of this form of civic right. That is a matter to which I will give consideration, though I am not sure that it is not rather difficult to say that if a man who has been found guilty of being drunk, and fined 10s. with the option of seven days' imprisonment, elects to do the seven days in prison, he should be in a position to vote—I think that he would want about 14 days to be able to do it—while a man who has genuinely gone on his holidays should be debarred.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Gentleman, when dealing with prisoners, is referring only to those who have been sentenced, and not to those in custody on remand?

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. Every man in this country on remand is regarded as innocent by everyone except the lawyer defending him. It would depend on the length of the remand, or where he was. I will take that into account, if I have to deal with this class of persons only, although I think that I am debarred by the Act from giving a postal vote to anyone except one who is outside the particular area in which he can be registered. I think I should be debarred from dealing with the gentleman who was deprived from voting for my hon. Friend and thereby giving him an absolute majority in his constituency.

Mr. Keeling: If this requires legislation, may I ask for an assurance that, so long as the law is what it is, namely, that a man who goes to prison in his own area is disfranchised and a man who is in prison in another area gets a vote, the right hon. Gentleman will arrange for the first man to be marched to the booth in charge of a warder?

Mr. Ede: I am not going to give any such ridiculous assurance as that.

Mr. Keeling: It would only be fair.

Mr. Ede: The hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan), who used to represent North Kensington, by which name I know him rather better—when he was a Conservative pure and undefiled—raised an issue with which I cannot deal as I would like, because it is one of the alterations I shall have to make; but I am giving particular

attention to the amount of publicity that can be given. The widest publicity will be given. I also note the point made by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall), and will endeavour to meet that.
I am arranging for these lists to be not merely at post offices, but at citizen advice bureaux and such other institutions where, I hope, it may be possible for some person who is there to be able to guide the voter in search for his name. It is one of the disappointments that I have not been able to arrange for a draft register to be published. The hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) gave us some account of what happened at the conference held some six years ago. I have the greatest difficulty in dealing with holiday-makers. At certain constituencies at certain times holiday-makers might swamp the work of the registration and returning officers in getting ready the election register.
It will be remembered that when we had the election in July, 1945, we were fortunate in having three weeks between the date of the voting and the date of the declaration, but, owing to the Lancashire and Yorkshire wakes, we had to arrange for some of the elections to take place on 12th July instead of on 5th July. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who represents two boroughs, one of which had its wakes on the 5th and the other on the 12th, was allowed to have a General Election all by himself on the 19th. In that kind of case, this might overwhelm a returning officer and lead to great dissatisfaction on the part of the electorate. But I am anxious to see that as many people as possible record their votes, and I shall welcome any further suggestions which hon. Members may be able to make; and I assure them that such suggestions will have my serious consideration.
Now I would just refer to this so-called conference. This was a body of people called together by myself to advise me, and it is not usual for the advice tendered in such circumstances to be published. I accept the full responsibility for these new Regulations; they embody some improvements, but not all, that I


should like to have made. Given time, I hope that they will be better than previous Regulations which I have brought before the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Representation of the People Regulations, 1950, dated 5th July, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND)

10.46 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Miss Herbison): I beg to move,
That the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.
These Regulations, which are applicable to Scotland only, are similar to those for England and Wales, which my right hon. Friend has just moved, and I propose, therefore, to make no further speech on them.

10.47 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I do not want to detain the House, but I would like to ask the hon. Lady if she is prepared to consider the few points which the Home Secretary has told us he will consider, and that, in particular, she will pay attention to the question of the honest holiday-maker going away with his family—as I hope to do next week—not being allowed to vote while the prisoner is allowed so to do. The Home Secretary says that he will consider this point, and I should like a similar assurance from the hon. Lady, as this is also applicable to Scotland.

Miss Herbison: I can give that assurance.

Question put, and agreed to.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (NORTHERN IRELAND)

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move,
That the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations, 1950, dated 6th

July, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.
One slight difference between these and the Regulations for England and Wales, is that in Northern Ireland there are different electoral arrangements, and the matter is complicated by the Parliamentary and local and municipal elections in Northern Ireland.

Question put, and agreed to.

CIVIL DEFENCE (DEMOLITION AND REPAIR SERVICES)

10.49 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I beg to move.
That the Draft Civil Defence (Demolition and Repair Services) Regulations, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.
These draft Regulations, for which I ask the approval of the House, are part of our steady preparation for Civil Defence, to which reference was made during yesterday's Debate. The Minister of Health has been designated as responsible for the repair of war damaged houses, demolition and clearance of dangerous structures, and the salvage of furniture and other personal property. These Regulations lay the responsibility on local authorities, but do not require them to carry out any of the work until requested so to do by the Minister. An explanatory circular to all concerned will, however, be issued shortly.
I should tell the House that the repairs will be specifically limited to dwelling houses, retail shops selling commodities essential to the life of the community, places used as emergency meal centres and other essential catering establishments and rest centres and buildings providing accommodation in emergency. The responsibility of the local authority will not extend to mains and plant of water and sewerage undertakings or the nationalised gas and electricity undertakings, nor to railways, or roads for which the authority has no peace-time responsibility. Regulation 2 sets out clearly the arrangements which local authorities will have to make to secure the availability of land, the appointment of a responsible officer, the training of staff, and the like. As I have already said, an explanatory


circular will be sent round to local authorities very shortly.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: We had a full Debate on this subject yesterday in the course of which these Regulations were referred to. I understand the local authorities have been consulted and are in agreement with the terms of the Regulations. In these circumstances, I think the sooner they are passed the better.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Draft Civil Defence (Demolition and Repair Services) Regulations, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Draft Civil Defence (Demolition and Repair Services) (Scotland) Regulations, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th July, be approved.—[Miss Herbison.]

WOOL TEXTILE EXPORTS

10.51 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Rhodes): I beg to move,
That the Draft Wool Textile Industry (Export Promotion Levy) Order, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.
This is in accordance with the requirements of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947. It is the second Order to be made under Section 9 of that Act. The first Order, which has been in operation since January, 1949, imposed a levy on the lace industry to finance scientific research. The purpose of this Order is to provide money to finance the export promotional activities of the National Wool Textile Export Corporation by imposing on the industry a levy estimated to yield between £100,000 and £120,000 per annum. The Order has the full support of the industry.
The wool textile industry is closely woven into the fabric of our history. Wool has contributed much to the social development of our island and to its economic well-being. It is a tribute to the numberless generations of men and women who have fashioned fabrics from wool that in 1950 we still process more wool than any other country in the world,

and we are responsible for about half the total world trade in wool textiles. Over 200,000 people are employed in the industry, and the turnover is approximately £400 million a year. It supplies over 90 per cent. of domestic requirements of wool cloth. It supplies 40 per cent. by weight of the yarns needed by our hosiery industry, and it is at present exporting directly about one quarter of its output, or over £100 million worth of goods a year. Its exports to North America are running at more than £21 million a year, which is 10 per cent. of all our dollar exports.
The National Wool Textile Export Corporation was set up in 1941 with the general object of providing a central service for exports of wool textiles. It was to establish a central office to help manufacturers in their war-time difficulties in producing goods for export. The Export Corporation has done a good job. In 1944 it set up and has since maintained an office in New York which undertakes market research and publicity to keep British textiles before the American public. It has arranged trade missions to the United States, Canada, South Africa, South America and Scandinavia.
It has also arranged for the production and display of documentary films on wool textiles, for the circulation of a news letter to all wool exporters, for statistical surveys on overseas markets, and for exhibitions. It has recently organised a display of British wool textiles at the Canadian National Fair at Toronto which was widely regarded as one of the best stands at the Fair. The Corporation has now, in agreement with the industry, made plans for promoting exports to North America which, it is estimated, will cost approximately £72,000 in each of the next three years. The Corporation also expects to spend some £40,000 a year on general export promotion work. These activities could not go on without the levy which is now proposed, and I have great pleasure in commending it to the House.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: It would certainly be a lack of chivalry on my part if I did not pay a tribute to the way the hon. Gentleman has been able to give colour and warmth to the rather formal task of moving that this Order be approved. I associate myself with the tremendous tribute, past, present and


future, that he has paid to this industry, which, happily, still remains in private hands
This is an occasion on which the Order and the plan submitted to us is agreeable, as I understand it, to all concerned in the industry. While the Minister, of course, does not surrender any of the rights or duties which he has under the Act, I am sure he also is pleased that on this occasion this Order and this scheme can be brought into being with general good will, for it is always better—and I think he will agree—when industry and the Government agree upon a scheme of this kind. Therefore, he has the support of my hon. Friends on this side of the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Draft Wool Textile Industry (Export Promotion Levy) Order, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I desire, even at this late hour, to raise two points with regard to this Bill—points which, I venture to submit, are of considerable importance; at any rate, the first point, for what is done or is said to be done under this Bill may be regarded as creating a precedent.
I think I am right in saying that before the passage of the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, one of the difficulties with regard to consolidation was that it was impossible to eliminate anomalies between different statutes and—if I may use the expression—marry them up together without making some changes in the statutes. That was the argument advanced in moving the Second Reading of the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Bill last year. As that Act says, it was an Act to facilitate the preparation of Bills for the purpose of consolidating enactments relating to another statute. Under Section I of that Act, with that object in view, and with that object only in view—that is to say, in order to

facilitate the consolidation of enactments—corrections and minor improvements can be made in the process of consolidation.
Now, the Act itself, of course, contains a definition of the phrase "corrections and minor improvements," and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, your attention has been drawn to the phraseology of that definition. My submission is that that definition cannot extend the operative Section, which is Section I (1); that is to say, that, in my submission, the only corrections and minor improvements that can be made are corrections and minor improvements in statutes for the purpose of facilitating consolidation.
Under that Act a memorandum has to be laid before Parliament as to the particular corrections and minor improvements that it is proposed to effect. In this case it is quite clear from the Memorandum that two of the proposals relate to more than mere consolidation of statutes. It is said, in relation to the second proposal, in the Explanatory Notes attached to the Memorandum, that it is proposed to codify some of the old ecclesiastical jurisdiction inherited by the courts; that is to say, if I may put it shortly, to put into a statute something that has never been in the statute before. The same question arises in connection with the third proposal contained in that Memorandum.
The first point I desire to submit to you is this. Any proposal for the codification of the common law by including it in a consolidation statute is beyond the powers conferred by the Act of 1949. It may well be—indeed, I think, it is desirable—that in one section of an Act one should find a full statement of the jurisdiction of the High Court with regard to alimony; but that cannot be done without putting into the statute something which is not contained in the statute at all at the present time. To put it in by way of a Consolidation Measure means that we can get the statute law made without this House having the normal opportunities of considering the proposals that are put forward.
I will put my point with regard to that as shortly as I can. It may be that it would be a minor improvement of our statute law if we could import into it a great deal of what is at the present time common law, but it cannot be said


that such importation is necessary for the purpose of the consolidation of the existing statute law. I think my submission is supported by what was said by the Attorney-General in moving the Second Reading of the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Bill. He said:
In the process of improving and clarifying the state of the law generally—and it is very important that it should be improved … there are two necessary stages, the first one, the consolidation of the existing statute law, and, the second, the reform and codification of the law as it ought to be.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was there drawing a very clear distinction between consolidation on the one hand, and codification on the other. He went on:
This Bill is concerned with the first of those two processes—the consolidation process."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1949; Vol. 464, c. 1362.]
I submit that it is clear that it was not the intention of this Act to give any power of inserting in the statutes the common law never contained in any statute up to the present time. I say that not only was that not within the intention of that Act, but in my submission it is beyond the powers contained in that Act.
I will put shortly the second point on which, Mr. Speaker, I would seek your ruling. The memorandum which is laid before Parliament is laid with the intention of enabling Members of Parliament to make representations if they wish to the Joint Select Committee. I am not at all sure that in the past adequate steps have been taken to bring the attention of Members of Parliament to this memorandum and I hope that further steps may be taken in the future. But that memorandum does at least indicate quite clearly what corrections and minor improvements in the law are contained in statutes which it is proposed to make. In each case the Joint Select Committee have presented a report in which they approve the changes proposed in the memorandum, which goes on to state that they have made certain amendments which seem to them to be necessary to the improvement of the form of the Bill.
It is quite impossible for any hon. Member of this House to know from reading that report what are these further changes. It is equally impossible for any practitioner to know what are these

changes, and in my submission if the argument put forward for the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act was right in the first place, the only power of making these changes arises in the procedure of the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949. By that Act it is provided by Section 6 (1) (vi) that if the corrections and minor improvements approved by the Joint Committee differ in any respect from those proposed in the memorandum laid before Parliament these corrections and minor improvements shall be appended to the report of the Joint Committee. That has not been done.
The only way we can find out what the Joint Committee has done is to read through the minutes of evidence, which, fortunately now have been published, and it is quite clear, in my submission, that they made changes to several clauses of the Act which clearly come within the definition contained in the 1939 Act on corrections and minor improvements.
I submit that, in those circumstances, the report of the Joint Select Committee does not comply with the 1949 Act, and I further submit that it is really very desirable that these changes made by the Committee, in addition to those contained in the memorandum laid before Parliament, should be identified in their report, so that not only Members in this House, but those who have to look at these Acts in the course of their work, should be able to find quite easily and exactly the changes made.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) for having given me notice of his intention to raise these two points, and though I do not invite cross-examination upon the exercise of the discretion which the House and Parliament have from time to time entrusted to me, I will answer his points because I realise the importance of the strictest scrutiny of a procedure which diminishes the opportunity of the House to discuss possible amendments of the law, and because this is only the third occasion on which this procedure has been used.
I must begin by apologising to the House that by mistake the Lord Chancellor's Memorandum was not printed by this House on 26th May when it was presented to it. I realise that this may


well have been the cause of the hon. and learned Member's attention not having been called to the Memorandum in time for him to make representations to the Joint Committee. I am sorry it happened, but I do not anticipate it will occur again.
I agree that the 1949 procedure must not be so used as to convert a consolidation Bill into a codification Bill, but I do not construe the word "facilitate" as narrowly as the hon. and learned Member does. I take the words "facilitate the consolidation" as meaning something like "enable the consolidation to be done better," and I take the words "minor improvements" as being in harmony with this view. Minor improvements must of necessity subtract from or add to the existing law and if, as in this case, they add something, it does not seem to me to matter from where it comes, whether from the common law or elsewhere, so long as it is minor and makes for better consolidation.
In the case of proposals 2 and 3 of the Lord Chancellor's Memorandum, although the word "codification" was used in the Memorandum and before the Joint Committee, I did not think—and after careful reconsideration still do not think—that they did more than facilitate improvement in the form or manner in which the law is stated by removing all possible doubt as to how far the existing enactments have had the intention or effect of expressing or excluding the remedies available.
As to the hon. and learned Gentleman's second point, while it is not for me to defend the Joint Committee, I must stress that, however convenient any other procedure would be, the Act only requires the Joint Committee to append their amendments to their report when they differ from those proposed in the Memorandum. In this case they made their amendments under the ordinary powers of a Joint Committee considering a consolidation Measure, namely, to express more clearly the law as it stands or to rectify mistakes or omissions in the restatement of the law. Though I do not agree that the hon. and learned Member's fears are justified in this case, he can rest assured that I will not overlook the discharge of my statutory duty under the Act Of 1949, and my duty to the House of protecting its rights.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the full consideration you have given to the points on which I sought your guidance.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I cannot have my decision argued. I have given my Ruling, and it would not be right that the Speaker's decision, formally given, should be argued in any way. I am not a lawyer, and I have had to take expert legal advice, and it would be quite impossible for me to argue legal points on this occasion. Therefore, I would say that it is out of order to challenge my Ruling in any way.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I was not proposing to challenge your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was hoping with your permission, to draw your attention to the fact to which you made reference in your Ruling, that the memorandum relating to this matter was not available to hon. Members in the Vote Office until as late as yesterday, which of course does place us in a very difficult position in carrying out what hon. Members conceive to be their duty in connection with this Bill. If I may suggest it, Mr. Speaker, the only point I am seeking to make is that hon. Members of this House have been placed at a considerable disadvantage.

Mr. Speaker: The presentation of the memorandum is hardly my affair. The memorandum was printed in another place, and was available there, and I dare say hon. Members knew that. I cannot stop proceedings of that kind, I am afraid.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. Eric Fletcher: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member understands that he cannot oppose the Bill except on the ground of opposing consolidation, and on no other.

Mr. Fletcher: As I understand it, this is the only opportunity the House has of considering in any respect the changes in the law that are made in this consolidation Bill, and it is open to the House on this occasion to consider not merely the pre-existing law which is now being consolidated into one Measure, but also the changes in the law which were the


subject of the Lord Chancellor's memorandum, which were considered by the Joint Committee, and are now being considered—

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid this is quite out of order. What is the object of this new procedure on consolidation Bills, if we may proceed to discuss what is being consolidated? I am bound by the title. The Bill consolidates certain enactments. One can only argue whether to consolidate or not. There can be no other argument.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I want to oppose this consolidation Bill as it stands, because in my view it consolidates bad law.

Mr. Speaker: We cannot discuss existing law, good or bad.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hannan.]

Committee Tomorrow.

ARBITRATION BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hannan.] Committee Tomorrow.

ADOPTION BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hannan.] Committee Tomorrow.

SHOPS BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hannan.] Committee Tomorrow.

CHURCH ASSEMBLY (INCUMBENTS DISCIPLINE MEASURE)

11.16 p.m.

Sir Richard Acland: I beg to move,
That the Incumbents (Discipline) Measure, 1947 (Amendment) Measure, 1950, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of

England, be presented to His Majesty for his Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
As a Motion of this shape and kind does not often come before the House, hon. Members will wish me perhaps to give a few words in explanation of an extremely short Measure. It has been before the Ecclesiastical Committee of the House, which reports that:
It is not controversial, does not affect prejudicially the constitutional rights of any of His Majesty's subjects and that it is expedient that it should be proceeded with.
The sole purposes of this Measure is to correct a mistake that was made in an earlier Measure. I apologise to the House for this mistake which is taking up a couple of minutes of its time now, and perhaps my apology will be the more readily accepted if I briefly explain the genesis of the mistake.
There was a Measure called the Benefices (Ecclesiastical Duties) Measure of 1926, which was in three parts. In 1947, there was introduced the Incumbents (Discipline) Measure which at first was thought to supersede the whole of the earlier Measure. While this later Measure was in course of passing, it was observed that Part II of the earlier Measure, which deals with the stipends of curates, was not covered by the later Measure, and the draftsmen dealt with this discovery by repealing Parts I and III, instead of repealing the whole Measure, and this seemed to deal with the matter adequately.
On closer inspection it become clear that this simple method of dealing with it had in effect left unrepealed two Schedules which ought to be repealed, and repealed three Clauses which ought not to have been repealed. This Measure now before the House corrects that mistake. The two Schedules depended entirely upon Part I of the earlier Measure which was correctly repealed, and the three wrongly repealed Clauses dealt respectively with the subjects of short title, the extent and the repeal of yet earlier Measures. It is certain that no one has either been advantaged or disadvantaged by this mistake, which had not been detected by anyone until it was detected by the legal experts of the Church Assembly.

Mr. Percy Morris: I beg to second the Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

HOUSING (RATE OF INTEREST)

11.20 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 24th April, 1950, entitled the Housing (Rate of Interest) Regulations, 1950 (S.I., 1950, No. 1008), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st June, 1950, be annulled.
These Regulations were made under the Housing Act of 1949, which enabled local authorities to make grants to individuals for improvements to dwellings, on conditions. If those conditions are not observed the local authorities are entitled to claim back their money, with compound interest at a rate to be prescribed by the Minister. It is also provided that if a person to whom a grant has been made desires to be released from the conditions, he can repay the money to the local authority, together with compound interest at a rate to be prescribed by the Minister. These Regulations prescribe the rate of interest. They are made under Section 35 of the Housing Act of 1949, which runs as follows:
The Minister may by Statutory Instrument make, with the consent of the Treasury, regulations prescribing anything required or authorised by this Part of this Act to be prescribed.
I would invite the attention of hon. Members to the Regulations. It is stated on the document that the Regulations were made on 24th April of this year. Underneath the signature of the Minister, which is under the official seal of the Minister of Health, "this 24th day of April, 1950," we find the signification of the consent of the Treasury. It reads:
We consent to these regulations.—R. J. Taylor, Wm. Hannan, Two of the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury.
Reading that, one would assume that under the terms of Section 35 of the Act, consent was given either before, or simultaneously with the making of the Regulations; because the Section says that the Minister may by Statutory Instrument make, with the consent of the Treasury, Regulations. But it appeared in evidence before the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, to the report of which I shall refer in some detail in a few moments, that in fact the consent of the Treasury was not signified until about a month after the Minister made the Order.

Therefore, I think it quite probable that if these Regulations were challenged in the courts they might well be held to be invalid.
The reason the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments reported this Order to the House was undue delay in presentation. They invited the Ministry of Health to put forward a memorandum to explain this very considerable delay, because, as appears on the face of the Order, the Regulations purported to be made on 24th April, and they were not laid before Parliament until 21st June. The Ministry of Health, after reciting what the Regulations did, stated:
These Regulations were accordingly executed by the Minister of Health on the 24th of April, 1950, and that date was inserted on the instrument before it was sent to the Treasury in order that they might signify their consent to the regulations. The instrument should have been left undated at this stage, being given a date subsequently after it had been returned signed by two of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury. The instrument was returned by the Treasury under cover of a letter dated 26th May which reached the Department on 30th May. A further delay took place before the instrument was laid, during which routine action in connection with the printing of copies for sale was taken. This should not have occurred, but accounts for the fact that the instrument was only laid on 21st June.
I should like to ask when the instrument was sent to the Treasury. That is not stated; nor is it stated in the memorandum supplied by the Treasury. The instrument was returned by the Treasury under cover of a letter dated 26th May, which reached the Department on the 30th. I know that Whitsun was included, but surely if the document was sent by hand, as I assume that it was, it ought to have got round in five minutes. How is it that it took five days?
The Ministry of Health in their memorandum make a very frank apology, which is more than the Treasury ever did. The Ministry of Health state:
The Department wish to tender their apology to the Committee for the mistake within the Department in the handling of this matter, which would not have occurred had the clear standing instructions in force been carefully observed.
I hope we shall be told what these instructions are.
The Treasury also supplied a memorandum, but they were not the least apologetic, although in my reading of what took place they are a good deal more to blame than the Ministry of Health. They state:


In reply to the Committee's enquiries,

(1) On receipt of the instrument from the Ministry of Health, it was submitted for signature by two Lords Commissioners and was received in the Treasury completed on 22nd May, 1950;
(2) Section 35 (1) of the Housing Act, 1949, provides that 'the Ministry may by statutory instrument make, with the consent of the Treasury, regulations prescribing anything required or authorised by this part of this Act to be prescribed.'
As the Committee are doubtless aware, it is not customary for a Statutory Instrument which requires only the consent of the Treasury to bear the date of signature. In this respect the instrument followed long standing practice and was similar to other instruments which have been the subject of scrutiny.
The Treasury is silent as to the date on which they received the Order from the Ministry of Health. It is important that we should know what that date was.
I certainly think there should be a change with regard to it being customary for the Lords Commissioners not to insert the date of their signatures. Why on earth should signatures be appended to important documents of this kind by the Lords Commissioners without a date being given? If I am right in my submission and they appended their signatures long after the Order purported to be made by the Minister, it has the effect of invalidating the Order. It is, therefore, a matter of the utmost importance that a date should be attached so we can be sure it was done before the making of the Order. The fact that the House and the Select Committee have often seen and passed Instruments where the same thing occurred is quite understandable, because we naturally assumed that the signatures on behalf of the Treasury would have been appended at the proper time.
I want to know why at least several weeks have passed while this Order was in the hands of the Treasury. Was it because the Treasury was concerned about the merits of the Order? The Order prescribes that the rate of interest shall be 4 per cent. I asked the Minister of Health on 13th July about the 4 per cent., and I asked why the Regulations authorised local authorities to charge interest at this rate per annum when they could have borrowed at 3 per cent., or even less, from the Local Works Loan Board. The Minister replied
This rate of interest is not related directly to the rate at which local authorities can now borrow.

That being so, then to what is it related? There is no explanation whatever, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, when he comes to reply, will give it.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: On a point of order, Sir. I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend, but as he is attacking the hon. Members for the Mary-hill Division of Glasgow (Mr. Hannan) and for the Morpeth Division of Northumberland (Mr. R. J. Taylor), and as he has given notice of this Motion tonight, is it not a grave discourtesy that neither hon. Member is present?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Taylor: Then, may I move the Adjournment of the House until such time as the hon. Members are in their places?

Sir J. Mellor: I was asking why this instrument was so long in the hands of the Treasury. Was the Treasury considering its merits; did it require a lot of thought? Surely it could have had no difficulty in finding two of the five Lords Commissioners. They are so often to be seen, and the Treasury would have had not the slightest difficulty in finding two. The Statutory Instruments Act is very precise upon the question of the publication. Section 2 says:
Immediately "—
and I emphasise that—
after the making of any Statutory Instrument it shall be sent to the King's Printer of Acts of Parliament … and copies thereof shall, as soon as possible, be printed and sold by the King's Printer.
This Order was made on 24th April, but was not published and presented until 21st June. The Select Committee has, on many occasions, complained about delay in the presentation of these Instruments; but fortunately, very largely because of their constant attention to this matter, there has been recently a great improvement and departments have been much more prompt in presenting Instruments a short time after having been made. It is all the more a pity that there should have been this serious lapse in this matter.

11.35 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I beg to second the Motion.
The hon. Baronet has stated quite clearly and fairly the point at issue. I am a little surprised that none of the three Ministers concerned is present this evening, because, after all, this is not just a matter of trifling importance. This concerns the making of a law which may have to be enforced in one way or another, with all the penalties which the law can provide.
Making laws is not a casual matter. The document, on which this Prayer takes place tonight, is not on the merits whether it should be four per cent. or 4½ per cent., but on the failure of the procedure prescribed by Statute. Our colleagues who served on this Committee gave a lot of time to it. Those present on the occasion when this Report was presented were three hon. Members belonging to the party to which I belong and three hon. Members belonging to the party opposite. Therefore, three hon. Members of the party opposite have thought it desirable to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there has been an administrative failure, a piece of gross incompetence. It is no use the Parliamentary Secretary smiling like the cat in "Alice in Wonderland," because that does not suit this case.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I am smiling because we hear these terms so often from the hon. Member that it is very difficult to decide sometimes whether they are really justified.

Sir H. Williams: It takes a long time for some Ministers to realise how smug they are. Here is a document signed by the Minister of Health, and two Lords Commissioners, one of whom is the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) and another, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), who all have their responsibilities. Certainly, the Lords Commissioners have to do what they are told. The Chancellor tells the Lords Commissioners so and so, and they sign on the dotted line. That is what they are there for; to stand at the door and watch the flocks go into the Lobby.

Mr. Royle (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): As the hon. Gentleman has referred to me, I should like to take him up on his point about Government Whips being at the door. Only Tory Whips are at the door.

Sir H. Williams: I thought the hon. Gentleman was referring to his duties at the Treasury. I thought he was one of the Lords Commissioners. They change them so rapidly that it is difficult to identify them. I think the other Member is the hon. Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill. I am delighted to get this straight because there is still one or other of His Majesty's Ministers whom I fail to identify. They hardly ever appear, and we do not know what they look like. I have learnt now that the two Lords Commissioners who signed this document are not present and the Minister of Health is not present. The Minister of Health always avoids being present if anybody is to speak after him. He always likes to speak last and not at the beginning, so that no one can reply to him. Let us be quite clear about that. He did not get on too well the other night when he was followed.
Here is this document, improperly signed and improperly dated. A breach of the law—[Interruption.] I do not say it is a criminal offence. There is no penalty on Ministers for this sort of thing. The document was signed on the 22nd and it took four days before they started to send it back. These four days were in the week before Whitsuntide when the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury were available. It took them four days to go through this routine job of signing a document already improperly dated. Then they sent it from the Treasury to the Ministry, a distance of 150 yards. It is true the Whitsuntide intervened, as my hon. Friend said, but if they had hired the Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), who is a very quick runner, they could have got it there quicker.
Then, they had to print it. It is dated 24th April, so I presume it was in printer's draft then. It was laid before Parliament on 21st June and actually reached the Treasury on 30th May. Surely, it does not take all that time to travel from the Treasury to the Library of this House, because that is what "laid" really means. I am not surprised that hon. Members opposite jeer when we raise these matters. They are completely indifferent to administrative efficiency. They think this House is the servant of Government Departments instead of being masters. The spirit of democracy is not in their blood or bones.

Mr. Fernyhough: Rubbish.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On a point of order. Is it not a fact that, even if 40 Members are not present, this Prayer can be put down again tomorrow, so that then the Lords Commissioners who are not here tonight can be present?

Mr. C. S. Taylor: May I raise a point of order during a Count?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No.

House counted, and 40 Members being present—

Sir H. Williams: rose—

Mr. Fernyhough: On a point of order—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Hon. Members opposite have come in now to do what they are paid for.

Mr. Femyhough: —I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) refer to hon. Members on this side of the House as "dirty dogs." Ought not that remark to be withdrawn?

Mr. C. S. Taylor: On a point of order. As an hon. Member opposite raised the question of whether 40 Members were present in the House, would I now be in order in moving the Adjournment of the Debate so that hon. Members responsible for signing this Order can be present?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman cannot do that in the middle of somebody else's speech.

Sir H. Williams: When I was interrupted I was drawing attention to the fact that this does after all, involve a question of the principle of the conduct of the Administration and of obedience to the law. Therefore, I think it is absolutely monstrous that on this occasion, when there is, in the judgment of a Select Committee of this House, containing three supporters of the Government and three opponents of the Government, an administrative failure, to which attention is drawn, none of the three Ministers involved in this charge has taken the trouble to be present, or to show that

courtesy to the House that they ought to have shown. I think the time has come when we should protest in every possible way against this gross discourtesy afforded to this House tonight.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would like to associate myself with what my hon. Friends have said. We do not expect the Minister of Health, in his arrogant disregard of the functions of this House, to be here tonight; but we did think that the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury who had signed this Order and who have not been so long in office as the right hon. Gentleman, might have been here to tender some explanation of their signatures. The hon. Members for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) and for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) are both paid to be Lords Commissioners of the Treasury. They have signed an Order to which the Select Committee has drawn attention. It does seem to us to be a most curious approach to their obligations that they should not have troubled to turn up tonight. They are not "rubber stamps." They must exercise some scrutiny of the orders they sign, and if they make an error they are expected to come here and say that they are sorry. This is one more instance of a casual and inefficient discharge of responsibility. It may be an explanation, but it is certainly no excuse, that they are members of His Majesty's Government today.

11.46 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I confess that I am a little surprised at the comments made by hon. Members on the other side of the House about the absence of my hon. Friends who as Lords Commissioners of the Treasury signed the particular Statutory Instrument about which the Prayer is being made tonight. I am here myself in order to answer the Prayer which is the customary practice in this House and it is quite unnecessary for any request to be made for the presence of my hon. Friends. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] There is no reason at all why they should be present tonight.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I ask the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Blenkinsop: No.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We have all night—

Mr. Blenkinsop: I have no objection to giving way in a moment or so but I propose to answer the points which have been raised, and I propose to answer them in my own way.
Let me say at the outset that it is perfectly true that the Ministry of Health did certainly make administrative mistakes in not laying the Order before the House earlier. Already a very frank apology has been made to the Committee upstairs, and I am perfectly prepared to repeat that apology here; because we do realise the importance of ensuring that these orders are laid before the House at the earliest possible moment. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) asked what were the instructions within the Department. They are to that particular effect.
We take some credit for the fact that it is very rarely indeed, if at all, that a complaint of this type is laid against the Ministry. We have always been proud of the fact that we have been able to ensure that hon. Members of the House are properly informed of the contents of these instruments in good time, as we desire that they should be. Far from the Minister of Health taking any action to deny hon. Members their rights, liberties and opportunities of considering these instruments, I think he has been particularly scrupulous to ensure that instruments should be laid in good time before the House.
Therefore, we regret all the more that in this instance there has been, as we openly admit, a serious lapse. We do regard it as a serious matter. We do not take the matter of the delay lightly at all—

Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing: If that is the attitude which he adopts, how does he explain the attitude of one of the supporters of the Government in attempting to call a count in this House in order that the whole thing should be obliterated and hushed up?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I think the point is perfectly clear. Some of those who spoke from the opposite side seemed to be making rather heavy weather of this matter, including the hon. Gentleman the

Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams). As he uses some extravagant language pretty frequently in this House, it was natural that my hon. Friend should challenge the House to see in fact how many hon. Gentlemen opposite were present and prepared to support the Motion.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Would the hon. Gentleman, in the new language of Parliament, describe it as "making heavy weather" of an Order to ask the two Lords Commissioners who signed the Order to attend the House and explain their action? Is that "heavy weather" in the new language of Parliament?

Mr. Blenkinsop: It has been the custom of this House to have the Minister responsible, to answer the Prayers laid before the House, and provided a satisfactory answer is given, I do not see what complaint hon. Gentlemen can have.

Sir H. Williams: Surely the hon. Gentleman is under a complete misconception? We are not now finally debating the merits of this Prayer, but an administrative failure involving three specific persons. We are challenging their incompetence, and, accordingly, those whose competence has been assailed have been charged specifically with failure in duty, and ought to explain things to the House. That used to be the procedure of the House before it deteriorated.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The Minister is responsible for this statutory instrument being placed before the House, and we accept full responsibility for the failure. It is right and proper that we should answer the complaints, and not any other persons, or any other Members who may have signed these Regulations. It is the Minister of Health who is responsible for laying this Order before the House.
I understand that the hon. Baronet, who very properly put down this Prayer after the comments made by the Committee upstairs, wanted some particulars of how these errors occurred. It is perfectly true, as he said, that the Regulations were technically made on 24th April, owing to the fact that they were so dated, prior to their signature by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury. That is not the custom with these documents.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think the hon. Gentleman meant


to say that they were dated at the time of their signature by the Minister of Health.

Mr. Blenkinsop: That is so. I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. They were, in fact, dated at the time of the signature of my right hon. Friend when in normal practice the date should await the signature of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury. I quite agree that it was an unfortunate error that this should have occurred. I can only say about the delay there, and the delay that occurred later, that the document was in fact returned to the Ministry of Health, and the delay in its presentation in the House is one for which we are very sorry.

Sir J. Mellor: I did ask the hon. Gentleman when the document was sent to the Treasury, because it stated later on that the instrument was returned by the Treasury under cover of a letter dated 26th May, but neither in the memorandum of the Ministry of Health nor in that of the Treasury does it say when it went to the Treasury, and we wish to apportion the blame.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The document was sent to the Treasury on 6th May. We, as the responsible Ministry, accept responsibility for the presentation of this document. I do not want in any way to ride off by passing responsibility to somebody else. The Ministry of Health is clearly responsible. It seems to me, in view of the very frank apologies that have been made, and the assurances given that we are most anxious that this sort of mistake should not occur again, that it is reasonable to ask that the Prayer should be withdrawn.
I want to make one or two points. It is clear that none of His Majesty's subjects has suffered by this delay. Although the Regulations came into operation on 22nd June, their practical effect can only be felt in any particular case at some future date, when an owner of premises in respect of which a grant has been given commits a breach of the conditions which calls for a return of the grant, and therefore the operation of this Order. Very few improvement grants have been made yet, and therefore no one has been injured by the delay that took place in the presentation of the Order.
The hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfleld (Sir J. Mellor) has

raised the point, both in Questions and again this evening, about the rate of interest being charged. He has asked why 4 per cent. was chosen when the Public Works Loan Board rate is 3 per cent. We are following precedent in this. He will perhaps recall that for the interest charged in relation to grants under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act of 1926—a comparable instance—the latest rate was fixed in May, 1939, at 4½ per cent., which compares in a very similar way with the 4 per cent. which was the then existing Public Works Loan Board rate.
The reason why, in both that case and this, the rate was higher than the Public Works Loan Board rate, is that the object is to secure that there is no abuse of public funds that have been made available to private persons for a public benefit in the provision of more or better housing accommodation. The private-person must not too lightly cause a breach of the condition imposed, and it is on this account that the rate at which a private person can borrow is measured rather than the rate at which a local authority can borrow. I hope that with these explanations the hon. Members will withdraw the Prayer, though we appreciate the reason that led to the laying of the Prayer and the point that has been raised by the Committee upstairs.

11.59 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Gentleman has been somewhat condescending in his remarks. I really cannot congratulate him on his covering-up operations. He has reiterated several times that he accepts full responsibility. It is a new doctrine to me that the Parliamentary Secretary, or indeed the Ministry of Health, can accept full responsibility for the actions of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, who do not even condescend to be present.

Mr. Blenkinsop: rose—

Mr. Manningham-Buller: No. The hon. Gentleman is fond of interrupting himself, but I notice he does not give way very readily. [Interruption.] If hon. Members had been in the House at the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "They walked out."]—they would have seen that the hon. Gentleman had to be subjected to considerable pressure before he gave way to a question. He sets a bad example in that respect.
We have had no explanation of the curious conduct in this matter. We have had an apology from the Parliamentary Secretary and the statement that he accepts responsibility, but we have had no explanation of how this came about.
Let us see what has been established. The Order was made on 24th April, the date on which it was signed by the Minister of Health, and it was not sent to the Lords Commissioners until 6th May. I should like to know why that interval of time was allowed to elapse. Was that due to the normal machinery now in operation under the Minister of Health? Does it really take the present Government a fortnight to pass a communication from the Minister of Health to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury? What is the explanation of that delay?
What happened then? It stayed with the Lords Commissioners from 6th May to 26th May—20 days. Did they really take all that time to read this order and understand it? Did they make any inquiries of the Minister about what it meant? It is not enough for the hon. Gentleman to say he accepts full responsibility. It is the conduct of the Lords Commissioners that has been partly called in question here. What did they do with this document during these 20 days? Did they consider it every one of these 20 days? Did they put it away in one of their files and forget about it while organising other operations? I think it is a discourtesy to this House that two of the Lords Commissioners who held this Order, perhaps reading it night and day for 20 days, should not have bothered to attend the House to explain what they found so extremely incomprehensible about this Order signed by the Minister of Health.
It does not stop there. After 26th May, back the Order comes to the Minister of Health. It is not laid before Parliament until 21st June. What is the explanation of that delay? What went wrong? There are three different things which the hon. Gentleman ought to try to explain. On one of them we do not ask him for an explanation for the simple reason that he is deserted by the Lords Commissioners. But two are obviously within his power to explain—the reasons for the delay between 24th April and

6th May, and between 26th May and 21st June. This extraordinary delay in the transaction of public business is only an indication of the present incapacity of His Majesty's Government. I feel that, even at this late hour, we on this side are doing a public service by drawing attention to the defects in the administration of the present Government.
We have been asked by the hon. Gentleman to withdraw this Prayer. Whether we do so or not remains to be seen. But at least we are entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman for what he has absolutely failed to explain. At least we are entitled to point out to him that it really is not enough in this House just to get up and say, "I accept full responsibility, and I apologise," without telling hon. Members really what went wrong in this particular instance. A lot appears to have gone wrong. Or is the hon. Gentleman saying that so far as the Ministry of Health is concerned, there was no departure from the usual procedure in that Ministry? [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] It is not enough for hon. Members on the back benches on the other side of the House to shout "Divide," in another endeavour to stifle debate. We had one attempt, when they were all absent, to count out the House. Obviously they are not sufficiently interested to join me in seeking from the hon. Gentleman an explanation of the curious conduct of the Ministry of Health in regard to this Order.
I suggest to them that in the interests of the public service it is important that we should be satisfied that adequate steps have been taken to ensure that nothing of this sort can ever happen again. We have not yet had a very adequate assurance on that point. The hon. Gentleman is always so ready to get to his feet, and I invite him to get on his feet again and repair his omissions.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Some little time ago I asked if I might move the Adjournment of the Debate so that the Lords Commissioners concerned might attend and give their explanation. You then stated, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it would not be proper for me to attempt to move the Adjournment while another hon. Member was speaking. I now beg to


move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

12.8 a.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As hon. Members opposite have indicated with considerable vocal power that they desire this Debate to go on, I must say that I agree with them in the view which they have, perhaps a trifle incoherently, expressed, that some further explanation is due from the Government Bench. I think that it is due not so much from the Parliamentary Secretary, who has undoubtedly done his best, though perhaps not a very good best, to cover the mistakes of others, but particularly from the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, who today are conspicuous by their absence. There is one point which they alone can explain, and which it is unfair to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain.
The Parliamentary Secretary has told the House that this Order was sent to the Treasury on 6th May, and the Treasury's Memorandum submitted to the Select Committee makes it clear that on receipt of the Instrument from the Ministry of Health it was submitted for signature to the two Lords Commissioners and was received in the Treasury completed on 22nd May, 1950. That is to say, that to obtain the signatures of two Lords Commissioners of the Treasury required no less than 16 days. I have searched the calendar to see whether there is any explanation apparent there. But there is not. The House was in session. Indeed, the only relevant entry I can find is that there was a new moon. I am bound to say, in fairness to the Lords Commissioners, that they are not at their best at the time of the new moon.
It is an extraordinary thing that when a Statutory Instrument is made in the exercise of delegated legislation by the head of a great Department of State, which for its validity requires the consent of the Treasury, 16 days should elapse before the necessary consent can be obtained. That is a matter which alone the Treasury can explain. Surely other representatives of the Treasury could explain. I see the Patronage Secretary is present, who normally confines his interventions to

short and decisive utterances—[HON. MEMBERS:"Hear, hear."] Members opposite think that these are the most effective interventions that come from the Treasury Bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear that they approve.
The Parliamentary Secretary did not attempt to deal with the question put by the hon. baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) as to the effect of this delay on the validity of the Order which may, as result, have to be dealt with elsewhere. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to direct his mind to whether an Order, purported to be made on 24th April with the consent of the Treasury, is valid or not when we know that the consent of the Treasury was not obtained until a month later. The Parliamentary Secretary did not attempt to answer, which I think means that he has a shrewd idea that the argument is unanswerable. One can take it, therefore, from his silence—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There seems to be a good deal of noise going on.

Dr. Morgan: There is also a good deal of repetition going on. Is there not a rule about that?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There certainly is, and I am paying attention to it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am certain that you will pay attention to it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as you have the advantage, which the hon. Member has not, of having been present to hear the Debate. Someone on the Treasury Bench must give an assurance on this matter, if the local authorities, who have to operate this Order are not to be left in doubt, because its validity has been challenged on the Floor of the House without any attempt being made by the Government even to assert its validity. There must inevitably be doubt in the minds of the public as to whether the Order is a valid one or not.
Really, the Parliamentary Secretary is not playing fair by the local authorities concerned if he does not at least give an assurance that the legal advisors of his Department have advised him that, not withstanding the admitted irregularities in the making of this Order, the Order, as such, remains valid.

Mr. Blenkinsop: There is no doubt about that. I can say straightaway what the hon. Gentleman wants to hear about the validity of the Order. That is not in question at all.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman has at last answered the very important point raised by my hon. Friend.
In his speech, the Parliamentary Secretary defended his hon. Friends the Lords Commissioners, on the important issue of the dating of their signatures, on the ground that it was not a customary practice. I do not challenge that it is a customary practice, but I do assert that the customary practice has been shown this evening to be both inappropriate and inconvenient.
We have seen this evening that the dating of the signatures may be highly important, and it is the common experience of all hon. Members of this House that, when signing documents of any importance—even their wills—the adding of the date may have considerable relevance. Not only hon. Members know that, but, I submit, so does everybody else. I hope, Sir, that those who represent the Treasury will take note of that, and will consider whether or not the events of this evening have not shown that what the customary practice has been shown to be is an unsuitable practice, and that it would be better that those who sign for the Treasury on these occasions should follow the normal practice of putting the date against their signatures. [Interruption.] I thought an hon. Member suggested that they should sign with a cross; I make no such allegation, for I believe, in all fairness, that most of them can write. There is a point of serious practice here, and I hope that, as a result of the discussion tonight, it may be rectified.
Finally, there is the point that, as a result of these mistakes and errors, the House has been deprived of the opportunity for debating this Order before it came into effect. That, too, is an issue of substance, for the effective Parliamentary control of these Orders must be affected very much by the dates on which they are laid; because, if an order is to be debated in this House, and annulled, it is better that that should be done before it comes into effect rather than, as in this case, a month afterwards. But the Parliamentary Secretary, on this lapse

of his Department, did not really go far enough to show an appreciation of the fact that the lapse of that Department has, in some degree, diminished the extent of Parliamentary control. Furthermore, the action of his hon. Friends in attempting to count out this Debate would, if successful have prevented us from debating the matter at all, which shows how much importance he and his friends really attach to this matter. I hope that the constituents of the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. H. Davies) who made the attempt will not overlook it.

12.20 a.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I find that this instrument bears on its face some evidence of not being in the form in which it may have been originally submitted to the Minister for signature. I find, for example, in the opening words of the Regulations that the Minister, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him, "hereby makes the following Regulations," and then, when I look at the actual text of the instrument, I find that there is apparently only one Regulation, namely, an alteration in the rate of interest payable under a certain statute.
It occurs to my mind that when the Minister signed this Order on 24th April there may probably have been additional matter there which led him to refer to these as Regulations and not as one would expect, in the singular, as a Regulation. I hope very much the Government can give the House an assurance that, in fact, this instrument is in precisely the form in which it was originally presented to the Minister.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The hon. Member will notice on this particular Order that there are, in fact, two Regulations, Nos. 1 and 2.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I notice that the title of the Regulations, if that is quite the way to refer to them, is expressed in No. 1 but, as I read it, No. 1 does not affect anything at all except that it was apparently written in a spirit of prophecy, because when one reads No. 1 one finds that the instrument is to come into operation on 22nd June, 1950.
This raises another question which I would like to put to the Parliamentary


Secretary. Why was it that the Minister signed the Regulations originally on 24th April, if he knew, in fact, as apparently he did, that: hey were only to come into effect on 22nd June, two months later? Does he know that the delays on the part of the Government are so appalling that it is now necessary for him to sign regulations very nearly two months in advance of the date on which they are to come into operation in order that they may be sent down the road to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury so that the two of them may be brought from this House into one room, excused for a moment from their duties here, in order to put their names to these two Regulations, and that then the paper is to be sent back to the appropriate department, arriving just in time on 2lst June in order to carry out the Minister's intention?
Really, this seems to me to be a very laborious process. Why was it that it was necessary to have this instrument signed very nearly two months ahead of the Debate? I can only draw the conclusion, first of all because of the slip as to the number of regulations that the Minister was, in fact, purporting to sign, and, secondly, this mysterious fact that the date now appears nearly two months after the signatures, there is some evidence for saying that when the instrument was at the Treasury the Lords Commissioners found something to which they objected, that the instrument was altered, and that there have been comings and goings and discussions of which this House so far has no knowledge whatsoever, and of which we are entitled to demand an explanation this evening. I find this set of Regulations, if they may be so called, is entirely unsatisfactory.

12.25 a.m.

Mr. Poole: I have been greatly impressed by the speeches we have listened to by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I am convinced that the Government have been guilty of some very serious misdemeanour in connection with this Order. Because I fear that there is some doubt whether hon. Members opposite will have an opportunity of expressing in the Division Lobby their opposition to and their sense of injury from the action of the Government, I consider it my duty, in order that they may not be deprived of that opportunity, to support the annulment of this Order,

and to carry it to a Division. I think it is desirable that hon. Members should have that opportunity, when the full 296 of them can register their protest.

12.26 a.m.

Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing: Before the hon. Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Poole) takes the step he has suggested, I think it would be as well if he were to get some more information on which to act, because unless he knows the facts of the case it will probably be rather difficult for him to vote. Of course, he may be "whipped" into the Lobby—but perhaps it may be improper for me to say so. However, he should really be pressing for greater knowledge to be supplied from his own Front Bench. That is what I propose to do.
There is one question which has remained unanswered, and it is a very important question. The only representative of the Government who has dared to stand up and speak from the Government Front Bench is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. He enjoys standing up and speaking, but I cannot believe that he really can enjoy pretending that he speaks on behalf of the Treasury.
When we read into the Memorandum from the Treasury the dates the Parliamentary Secretary has supplied to the House, it reads in this way. I should like to draw the attention of the House to these very significant dates. We turn to the Report of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Memorandum from the Treasury in reply to the inquiries, and paragraph I reads thus:
On receipt of the Instrument from the Ministry of Health on 6th May"—
the date supplied by the Parliamentary Secretary—
it was submitted for signature by two Lords Commissioners, and was received in the Treasury completed on 22nd May, 1950.
We have these definite dates, 6th May and 22nd May, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) referred. No explanation of that delay of 16 days has been supplied by the Government—

Mr. John Lewis: On a point of order. Representations were made to you a little earlier, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, about tedious repetition. I think it must be within your knowledge


that this matter has been referred to on three occasions already. I would ask you to give a Ruling on this point, so that, perhaps, we may not have to submit to this any longer.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was looking up the Rule, and I must warn the hon. Gentleman that we have had this question of date gone into very fully. If the hon. Member persists in it I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: That question, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, was posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. He, in fact, was the only Member to raise this issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] He was the only Member to raise this issue, and no hon. Member on the other side of the House can deny that. That question has not been answered, and no attempt was made to answer it by any representative of the Government on the Front Bench. What I would submit to you, with the greatest respect, is this.
Am I not entitled, after the Parliamentary Secretary has supplied us with the dates, to ask him once again whether he will consider making an answer himself, with the full responsibility of speaking on behalf of the Treasury? If he does not speak on behalf of the Treasury, I would ask him why it is that we cannot get a straight answer to a straight question from the Treasury itself, because we have not yet had one.
I would not like to pursue that matter to the embarrassment of the Government, but really I do not think that the House —I am not trying to make trouble in this matter at all—[Hon. Members: "Oh, no!"]—of course not. But we are entitled to a straight answer to a straight question, and if we do not get it I think we are entitled to go on asking the question. I would ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to consider this. If in the future the Ministry of Health, either through the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary, are to speak for the Treasury, who, in future, are we to expect to introduce the Budget in this House? Are we to understand that in future the full authority of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No question of the Budget can possibly arise on this Order.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: On a point of order. The regulation was made on Budget day.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I certainly will not follow that point. I think it might involve us in a wider sphere of debate than would be suitable at this time in the morning. But I would most earnestly ask that there should be some indication given from the Government that there will be no recurrence of this sort of affair at all. No apology has been made. We have seen the published apology, and I only wish that the Press of the nation could read through the full verbatim apology offered by the Ministry of Health, and then they would see how culpable is that Ministry.
I only wish that on the Floor of this House someone would give an under taking—even the Home Secretary who is sitting there. He always most gallantly turns up at the end of these Debates. It is so unfortunate that he never hears the beginning of them. If he did hear the beginning he might—

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Judging by the part I have heard. I was very lucky not to hear the beginning.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am a very junior Member of this House and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to judge the rest of the Debate on my standard. But I do think it would be a very good thing if some right hon. Gentleman on the Government Front Bench were to get up and give the House an undertaking that this sort of thing would not happen again. We are entitled to that. The Parliamentary Secretary has had plenty of time. He has now read through the Order and he is beginning to know something of the subject on which the whole of this Debate is based.
I think by now he has had time to get up and say, "I am sorry. I will speak to my right hon. Friend and I will give that assurance on his behalf." But can he do that? I believe that the fact that we have had no such apology is because nobody can speak for the Minister of Health. He is completely irresponsible in such matters.

12.34 a.m.

Sir J. Mellor: On our complaint of the unjustifiable delay by the Ministry of Health we have had no satisfactory explanation. On our complaint of the unjustifiable delay by the Treasury we have had no explanation whatever. Therefore, on that aspect of the matter we remain entirely dissatisfied—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide"]—but such complaint as I made with regard to the substance of the Order was at least dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary and he produced an apparently reasonable explanation. Therefore, as I have no wish to destroy the Order, because I do not object to it in substance, I see no purpose in dividing the House. I do not ask leave to withdraw, I merely say I do not propose to divide the House.

Question put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. POOLE and Mr. USBORNE were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Members being willing to act as Tellers for the Noes, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 24th April 1950, entitled the Housing (Rate of Interest) Regulations, 1950 (S.I. No. 1008), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st June 1950, be annulled.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

HEARING AIDS

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wilkins.]

12.38 a.m.

Mr. Frederic Harris: The time is too late, I feel, to raise the very serious matter of hearing aids. I feel that deafness is one of the most dreadful of all ailments, and the provision of hearing aids is quite a worthy part of the National Health Service. I would further say that it is a part of that service which should not be as subject as it is to exploitation. Nevertheless, thousands of people are still in need of hearing aids. It is equally serious that the existing organisation cannot cope quickly enough with minor repairs to hearing aids that have already been issued. May I ask the

Minister to listen to the serious matter I am trying to put, or does he want one of the hearing aids to which I have been referring?
The history of the Medresco hearing aid is not a happy one. In this country there are at least 10 reputable firms which specialise in making hearing aids, and yet contracts given by the Government for Medresco manufacture or assembly have been given only to the radio industry. If the criterion was the price at which the tenders were originally accepted, I suggest that the money spent in correcting faults which arose in such numbers during the early stages far exceeds the extra expenditure the Government would have had to incur for the proper manufacture of these aids by the industry which knows about it. In the early stages, at least half the aids provided were faulty, and most of these faults were those which the hearing aid manufacturers, from their own experience, would have been able to avoid.
In the Mark 2 models of Medresco, there have been a large number of cord breakages which required a complete dismantling of the aids. In the Mark 3 model the cords will be attached to a plug for easy replacement. The hearing aid industry has been using these plugs for years. The industry would have saved the Exchequer many thousands of pounds in the repairs that have had to be paid for if these had been used in the first place. The original contract was given to one firm in the radio industry—there is no need for me to quote it—but the Minister may be able to confirm that there are now three radio firms doing this work. This is the only example of a surgical instrument under the National Health Scheme being manufactured outside its own industry, and in which manufacture is strictly controlled by the Ministry.
The industry has been practically ignored. They were not consulted on research work. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what justification there has been for putting research work in the hands of Post Office engineers. Most of the research could have been eliminated by giving the work to experienced firms who knew the answers in the first place. I find, as the result of investigation, that over 60 per cent. of Medresco hearing aids already issued are hardly used; that is brought about by lack of training in


the use of them when they are originally issued. The bone conduction hearing aid with which the Post Office has been experimenting for two years has been on sale for some years in the industry. One firm in my own constituency manufactures an efficient bone conduction hearing aid. I know it is efficient because I have had it tested by a well-known Harley Street specialist.
The control of hearing aids is so rigid that only one stereotyped instrument is manufactured. Even a layman like myself appreciates that different individuals require different instruments. I am told that the two ears of each of us are not alike. The hearing aid industry has always produced a range of different instruments designed to take account of individual difficulties in hearing. The production of these aids should be in the hands of an industry which manufactures them, and has done so for many years, and which is only sustaining itself by trying to obtain private sales and export business. It should not be left to one or two firms. What would happen if there were a strike in those firms?
Is it not a fact that the weekly output of hearing aids at the present time is restricted to some 1,500 a week, which cannot possibly meet the needs of the urgent cases that exist? I am not sure of the Minister's figure of the number of cases existing at the moment, but I understand it is in the region of 40,000. In addition, the number of repairs that have to be done is appallingly high, and leads to a heavy loss of working hours. There is a solution to the bottleneck in the carrying out of voluntary repairs to hearing aids. Many people are restricted to private firms because they cannot wait for the work to be done at the Ministry's own workshops.
As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, there is an organisation with branches up and down the country called the Hard of Hearing League. While they try to do a lot for the welfare of the deaf, they are not recognised by the Ministry in the distribution and repair of these aids. In the ranks of the League there are capable electrical engineers with wireless experience who could be relied upon to give adequate service and to do minor repairs. The Minister could keep simply an efficient financial and stock control and

arrange for the deaf to enjoy the convenience of these additional services. I believe the Hard of Hearing League are actually prepared to play this rôle for the good of the deaf people if the Minister should call upon them to do so.
One cannot under-estimate the psychological effect of deafness on men and women. Therefore, any help given is a great social service. As the Minister said in the House on 6th July, it is true that many people who could not afford hearing aids previously may now look forward to a Medresco. I heard him make that comment, and personally I was disturbed at the way he made it and the tone he used when he said it. If these aids are being provided from taxpayers' money, it is surely the Minister's own responsibility to ensure that the most efficient service is given at the minimum cost.
Do not let us forget that before June, 1948, hundreds of deaf people who could not afford these aids to hearing were supplied free of charge through the media of philanthropic bodies. Since that time our whole outlook has changed under this service and these philanthropic bodies are not so easily able to come forward and grant such additional help. Therefore, we are falling back on the service given under the National Health Service and relying on it. I would say to the Parliamentary Secretary that it needs much more consideration and attention than, unfortunately, it has been given at the present time.

12.48 a.m.

Major Hicks-Beach: I am sure we are all grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important question. I want to speak only of one particular hearing aid—namely, the bone conduction aid—and to ask the Parliamentary Secretary when the bone conduction aid will be available to the public. I appreciate that this is an aid wanted by only a small proportion of those unfortunate people who are deaf. In an answer in December, 1949, the Minister of Health said that only 5 per cent. of those who suffer from deafness require this particular aid. The fact remains that as long ago as December, 1949, these people were promised that investigation was going on to see when the bone conduction aid would be available to the public. In recent correspondence with the Minister


of Health, I received the reply that this investigation continued.
As I understand it—and I know I speak in the presence of greater experts than myself—the position is that these aids are being produced commercially at the moment. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make it clear whether they are to be issued under the National Health Service, because I have had a great number of complaints from people in my constituency that they do not know where they are. If these aids are going to be issued, these people should be told so, and also be told when they are going to receive them.

12.50 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr Blenkinsop): I am glad that this subject has been raised, even though it is at a fairly late, or early, time of the day. I am very glad to have this opportunity of saying a word about this particular service. It will be realised, I think, on both sides of the House, that this is a new service which has been in operation for only a comparatively short time. Naturally, it takes some time to get the maximum production force available. It also takes some time to get a number of distribution centres and testing centres organised. It must be realised that it is not merely a matter of production of the hearing aids themselves, but of having sufficient technically equipped personnel to test and fit them, which is a matter of great importance.
We cannot accept the implication that whatever manufacturing capacity exists can all be harnessed to the production of free Government aids. That is obviously economically impossible. Yet that was almost implied when the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Frederic Harris) suggested that there are many other firms which we know are producing hearing aids of various types. He seemed to be almost suggesting that their capacity ought to be used for the production of these aids for free distribution.

Mr. F. Harris: The point I am trying to make is that the Ministry did not use one single firm in the industry. They cannot give me the name of one firm. They use radio firms but not these expert firms.

Mr. Blenkinsop: We use firms which are extremely expert.

Mr. Harris: They have never done this before.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The decision was taken when the service was started that we would produce the aids ourselves. This statement has been reinforced on many occasions. For that reason the Electrico-Accoustics Committee of the Medical Research Council drew up a specification on which the hearing aids were put into production. This specification is complied with in the instrument now available for distribution. Inevitably we started on a small scale. We have been steadily developing the distribution service so that today we have more than 80 technicians distributing hearing aids in some 47 distribution centres, to whom patients are referred after being tested in 137 diagnostic centres. The latest figure I have shows that more than 80,000 patients have had free hearing aids provided. That is a very big step in the direction of providing for all those who need hearing aids.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many are waiting?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I cannot give that figure offhand. It is perfectly true that we have not the total figure of those who might be relieved by the use of a hearing aid. Therefore, we are still in the stage of having no complete evidence of the total number who need to have a hearing aid provided. Even so, I would say that the estimate of 400,000 which I understood the hon. Member to give tonight is an exaggeration. The best estimates which we have are lower than that.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North, also suggested that some 50 per cent. of those to whom hearing aids have been issued are not using them. There is no sort of justification for that statement. It is obviously true that there are many who (have received these hearing aids who used them a great deal more in the first week or two after receiving them than they have done later. It may be true that they have put them by for a little while for use on special occasions, and are using them a great deal Jess. As I think is known—I believe it has been mentioned in the House—we are making


an investigation into this matter. First, there has been a pilot investigation; then there will be a more thorough investigation to find out how many of those to whom hearing aids have been issued have given up using them altogether.

Mr. Harris: I do not make statements unless I am pretty sure of what I am saying. If the Parliamentary Secretary takes 100 cases, he will find that approximately 60 per cent. are not using them. The position can be judged by the number of refill batteries.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The hon. Member is merely taking a very limited number of cases which have been brought to his notice. Over the country as a whole, such estimates as we can make suggest that his statement is a gross exaggeration.
I have mentioned that the question of distribution is not just a matter of handing out these instruments over the counter, but that the hearing-aid service is part of a larger service, which involves a patient-hospital relationship, diagnosis, technical fitting, repairs and maintenance. We cannot, therefore, decide to take whatever aids the industry produces, and at whatever price they charge. We decide, from time to time, the quantities to order, and contracts are then placed on our behalf by the Post Office. All firms have an opportunity of quoting. Whether the number of firms is more than one or not, we take up the number we can adequately distribute through our service.
We must not merely look at the production side. The current contracts are with three firms well known in the manufacture of electrical equipment, firms of the highest reputation. The hon. Member also referred to the frequency of repairs. It is true that the Mark 1 design was subject to a great deal of repair, but experience shows that less than 17 per cent. of the Mark 2 sets require repairs. Continued improvement is being made, and the scale of repairs is being steadily reduced. It is true that we have faced this problem of the leads—minor repairs usually consist of replacing leads. An improved type of lead is in production.

Dr. Hill: Is the new one not soldered?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I cannot say offhand. It is pointed out that commercial aids are expensive, and are purchased very often by those who can afford to take rather greater care of them. I would point out that the free aids are being issued to people in all types of occupations, which means there is a greater chance of repairs being needed.
On the question of bone conduction aids, it is true that to a certain extent we have been disappointed in not being able to issue a bone conduction set earlier, but we did not make any promise of being able to do so by any particular date. We are certainly anxious that one should be made available, and I can assure those people who want these sets that, although they are a small proportion, we have their needs in mind, and that we are a good way forward in our production efforts. It is not possible yet to give a date for their issue. As has already been said, investigations have been going on for some time with the intention of adjusting the Medresco aid for use with the bone conduction receiver.

Major Hicks-Beach: Surely, when the hon. Gentleman says that he cannot get a date for the distribution of these sets, he knows that bone conduction sets are already on the market?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am perfectly aware of that, but I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that we are certainly not going to accept for free issue to the public whatever may happen to be available for purchase on the market today. As a matter of fact, we are making arrangements for the production of a limited number of pilot sets for testing purposes, and it will depend on the results of this testing how far forward we can get with making available equipment for the general public; but we cannot accept any set on the market for sale.
One further point was that raised by the hon. Member for Croydon, North, who mentioned that valuable work is being done by the Hard of Hearing League. We are, in fact, considering the offers of various kinds of help, but there are some difficulties in the arrangements. We are anxious to do everything we can as a result of offers made to us.
I can assure hon. Members that we are anxious steadily to develop this service; there is no intention of causing


difficulty to the hard of hearing, and we are very glad that so many sets—over 80,000 so far—have been distributed, and the rate of distribution has been increased with the large number of centres we are setting up, and with the addition of trained personnel. It is the limited number of trained personnel, rather than anything else, which holds us back, and I hope that hon. Members who have rather suggested that these aids are of an inferior quality will realise that the aids are very good instruments indeed. They bear as close examination as most

sets on the market. They have limitations; they are not, we are aware, luxury sets, but they give very good service, and we have had in the Department many tributes from those who have had the joy of hearing for the first time for, perhaps, many years, as a result of the sets having been distributed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes past One o'clock a.m.